The article starts with a simple question. “If 98 percent of organizations in the United States have a sexual harassment policy, why does sexual harassment continue to be such a persistent and devastating problem in the American workplace?”
The article suggests the answer lies in corporate and cultural norms that such policies fail to address — that sexual harassment is embedded in organizational culture, which in turn are embedded in a larger national culture in which men have traditionally been granted privileges over women. As a result, sexual harassment policies focus on the behaviors of harassment and victims perceptions of those behaviors (which one can marginalize, ignore, or blame on the victim).
The article goes on to suggest two related solutions to this harassment-policy drafting problem:
“Include culturally appropriate, emotion-laden language in sexual harassment policies. For example, language such as ‘Sexual harassment is a form of predatory sexual behavior in which a person targets other employees.’ Using terms such as ‘predatory’ instead of ‘perpetrator’ and ‘target’ instead of ‘victim’ can shape how organizational members interpret the policy.
“Sexual harassment policies should include bystander interventions as a required response to predatory sexual behavior. Most policies place responsibility for reporting harassment exclusively on the target, which puts them in a vulnerable position. If they report the behavior, then they are likely to be viewed with suspicion by their colleagues, often becoming socially isolated from their coworkers. On the other hand, if they do not report the sexual harassment, then it is likely to continue unabated, creating harm for the targeted employee, and wider organizational ills, too. Mandating bystander intervention can relieve the target of their sole responsibility for reporting and stopping predatory sexual behavior, and rightly puts the responsibility of creating a healthier organizational culture on all members of the organization.”
This all makes for a very interesting read, but I don’t think it goes far enough. Any anti-harassment policy, no matter how drafted, is not be worth the paper on which it’s written unless the company has an overall culture that abhors harassment.
In other words, an employer must take all complaints seriously. Taking complaints seriously includes ensuring that all employees understand the harassment policy, that employees have more than one avenue to make complaints, that investigators are properly trained, that the company regularly reviews its policies and procedures for compliance and effectiveness, and that no one ever suffers retaliation.
No anti-harassment program is perfect, but you must have one that’s effective. Otherwise, no matter where the he-said/she-said pendulum swings, you will start every harassment case at a disadvantage.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
There’s nothing worse than a leader who refuses to admit when he or she is wrong. That goes for companies too. If you’re a leader in your industry, a household name, whatever, that does not make you perfect. That just makes you popular.
Therefore, if you do something wrong, own up to it already. Why drag out the suffering? Eventually, we’re going to figure out everything anyway. Why not set yourself, or your company up for a comeback, and let the healing begin? Why not embrace those teachable moments, push forward with integrity?
But that’s what happens in a perfect world. I get it. I understand why Google, currently being sued by the U.S. Department of Labor over possible widespread gender pay discrimination, doesn’t want to go the mea culpa route given what’s at stake.
Even though I’m pleased as punch the tech giant is in the hot seat — and other women should be too, given what the right outcome could mean for women in tech and elsewhere — some part of me feels a vague, nonsensical kind of pity because this is no little mistake. This isn’t even an FCC nipplegate fine type mistake. If the DoL finds that Google has been systemically underpaying women, not only will its salary band stretch beyond all recognition, it will be ripe for lawsuits from past employees and who knows what else. With the wrong damage control strategy, Google could conceivably hit the skids. But I’m getting ahead of myself.
Tech giant Google is being sued by the Department of Labor over possible widespread gender pay discrimination.
This is going to be one of those deny, deny, it wasn’t me, deny to the last breath scenarios because a guilty verdict here would COST, and I do mean dearly. There would be serious damage to Google’s brand reputation. There likely would be government sanctions, and the internal cost of fixing a broken pay system — and I’m not even talking about pay reparations, but how the company would proceed going forward — would certainly not be cheap.
Company leaders would have to look perplexed — “We just don’t know how this happened.” — blame some people, point some fingers, fire some folks to show they’re taking it all seriously. The clean out in the wake of being found guilty of a charge like this would naturally bring some hiring, recruitment and replacement-related talent costs, and the legal fees? Good night.
Of course, that’s assuming Google will be found guilty, not that we’ll see a resolution any time soon. I predict I’ll be watching this story unfold over the next few, dare I say, years? Google is going to engage in a gladiator-style fight to the death to keep from admitting wrongdoing here. But if they did own up to their mistake, you know, rather than try to block the media from even covering the lawsuit — good luck with that, by the way — things might not be ruinous for them. At least, not from a brand reputation recovery perspective.
The company would take a significant hit. The issue is too big and involves too many people for them not to get a Floyd Mayweather-style punch to the face on this one. But if they did say, you know what? We screwed up. And then did what was necessary to fix the problem, they could recover. They’d be significantly lighter in the purse, but they could recover.
First, it’s not like we can do without Google. Sure another company could take over or start something similar, but people will still say, “Google it,” when they don’t know something. Second, how stunning would it be if Google’s supposed downfall became its resurrection as a new industry standard with global implications for literally half of the work world? Olivia Pope — or her real-life equivalent — could spin that into comeback company gold.
It could totally happen. If a company as large and well known as Google not only admitted that women get short changed — pun intended — then fixed its pay policies to ensure that women didn’t perennially get the short end of the stick, that we would in fact be paid equitably? *whistles* That’s huge. That’s life-, no, that’s world changing.
But no. Google claims it has eliminated its gender pay gap globally thanks to “innovative compensation models.” Those would be good to share, Mr. Tech Giant. Even if you have to sell them, share.
Yeah, Google’s gonna fight the good fight on this one. I want to say they’ll lose because they should. Women should be paid equitably. Period. But I don’t know.
So far, the DoL hasn’t been able to compel Google, a federal contractor, to reveal salary histories and other documentation for its internal pay practices. This despite having “received compelling evidence of very significant discrimination against women in most common positions at Google headquarters,” according to a Forbes piece I read.
And we all know, what’s right doesn’t always win, does it?
Kellye Whitney is associate editorial director for Workforce. Comment below or email editor@workforce.com.
Motherhood, despite the challenging, multi-faceted, always-on nature of the gig, is not a job we would typically associate with leadership.
Worse, when discussed in a workplace context, motherhood is usually a negative. But when I read Moira Forbes’ “7 Leadership Lessons You Can Learn From Working Mothers” this week, I saw things in a whole new light.
Forbes asked a group of successful women to share the most important leadership lessons they’ve learned since becoming a mother. What follows is my take on how a diversity leader might consider a few of those lessons on the job.
Know when to push and when to let go. Christa Quarles, CEO of Open Table and mother of two sons, said that“so much of parenting is wrestling with the dichotomy of when to push your child and when to let go and let them drive the direction; thereby enabling the condition that they might fall or fail.”
A leader or manager faced with a problematic employee situation has to walk a tightrope between what’s good for the employee and what’s good for the company. But I would encourage those leaders not to err on the side of caution. Meaning, don’t decide not to say the hard truth for fear of repercussions or making the situation worse.
And it doesn’t need to be a case of “a hard head makes a soft ass,” as my mama liked to say when I got into some mess. With a bit of thoughtful planning – and perhaps a word or two with your HR peers — there’s a diplomatic way to handle almost everything.
There have been many times I’ve learned a lesson late, far later than I needed to because a manager neglected to tell me a hard truth. I can understand why someone wouldn’t want to go there. Let’s say you have a smart, strong black woman known for calling a spade a spade — I may or may not be talking about myself — who’s underperforming in some way; that could be intimidating. I too have shied away from dicey situations with direct reports. But that’s rarely the right way to handle a situation.
It certainly isn’t worth bearing arms for every fight, but when a certain behavior or a lack of knowledge will affect someone’s ability to do their job, or potentially have a long-term impact on their career, for goodness sake. Bite the bullet, and let them know. If they’re anything like me, they’ll thank you for your honesty. “It’s … important to step in and course correct,” Quarles said. “Striking that balance is what defines effective leadership.”
A personalized approach is key. Lizzie Widhelm, senior vice president of ad product strategy at Pandora, was talking about her three sons when she said,“My children are two parts amazing, one part insane, and a whole lot of nothing alike. If I don’t adjust to their unique personalities and spend quality time with each of them, we have total chaos at home.” But leaders have to face the same diversity of opinion and behavior in the workplace. It requires equal parts diplomacy, policy, curiosity and empathetic consideration.
Widhelm said her team at Pandora was able to benefit from the many mistakes she made at home because those mistakes helped her bring a more perfect leadership strategy to work. But there’s nothing wrong with making mistakes as long as you do that very modern thing — fail fast, and learn the lesson.
When working with diverse personalities or individuals, consider their personal and professional situation carefully, and if there’s a challenge, make it crystal clear you’re there to help. Communication is important in most situations, but I’d say it’s critical in a problematic situation with an employee. Ask questions, and listen thoughtfully to the answers. Offer solutions, and where possible, collaborate before making final decisions.
“Everyone has different strengths, passions and motivations,” Widhelm said. “The interesting thing about putting the extra time in with your team is they appreciate you for the investment and in turn your relationship grows and leads to more open and honest conversations.”
Embrace unknown territory. Michelle Cordeiro Grant, founder and CEO of Lively was talking about her son and daughter when she said, “motherhood has taught me not to fear the unknown but instead embrace the journey of learning on the go!” But her sentiment is no less viable in a work context. A manager dealing with a diverse team, or certain personality types for the first time, may encounter any number of new and potentially unnerving situations. But Grant’s advice to enjoy “figuring it out” has weight.
Too many of us shy away from any dimension of diversity because of the inherent discomfort when encountering something new or unfamiliar. But that discomfort often goes hand in hand with learning. That opportunity for learning and development is what any leader should embrace.
With learning comes growth, and with both there will be milestones and accomplishments. Grant said each of her milestones built upon the next, creating momentum and empowering her to continue to build. “The big takeaway for me is to use moments of accomplishment, big or small, as fuel to have the courage to go after it all – the sky’s the limit!”
Balance competing needs. Kathy Hochul, lieutenant governor of New York, was talking about her two children when she said, “an essential role of motherhood is being a conciliator: resolving conflicts — which in my case was often with warring children.” But two squabbling kids aren’t all that different from two adults having a heated difference of opinion at work. I know. I’ve seen both.
Workplace conflicts are inevitable as knowledge workers leverage collaboration and are freed from the restrictions associated with command and control leadership. But they needn’t be the end of the world. “While mediating an argument, I sought to teach empathy for the feelings of others and respect for different faiths and backgrounds that may give others a different point of view,” Hochul said. “Children learn by example.” Employees do too.
Leaders may have to teach employees how to collaborate effectively, mediate, even argue or communicate respectfully. But it’s worth it when those different points of view produce great work, innovation or service/product improvements.
I’ve often thought adults could learn a lot from watching how children go through life: wide-eyed and curious, fearless and laughing even when they fall down or make mistakes. We can learn a lot from their mothers, too.
Kellye Whitney is associate editorial director for Workforce. Comment below or email editor@workforce.com.
Last week, I nominated Target Corp. and MarketSource for the worst employer of 2017, because they ignored the approximately 10 incidents of vile ethnic harassment a Palestinian employee suffered during the brief two-month tenure of his employment. Almost as bad was the logic of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which concluded that, as matter of law, the employee failed to state a claim for ethnic harassment because the “morally repulsive” comments “were not physically threatening.”
Ahmed, an Egyptian Muslim, alleged that her senior supervisor, Anthony Figeroux, repeatedly subjected her to ethical and religious slurs, such as “constantly” telling Ahmed to remove her hijab, which he referred to as a “rag,” and making a comment during her interview (which happened to be on Sept. 11) that Ahmed and two other Muslim employees were “suspicious” and that he was thankful he was “on the other side of the building in case you guys do anything.”
According to the court, the evidence “could lead a reasonable jury to find that Ahmed was subjected to ‘a steady barrage of opprobrious racial’ and anti‐Muslim comments and conduct constituting a hostile work environment.”
The conduct in Ahmed was significantly less severe or pervasive as compared to the conduct alleged against Target, et al., which included slurs like “camel jockey” and “sand nigger.” Yet, this court still had little difficulty concluding that a jury, and not a judge, should decide whether the slurs and other anti-Muslim comments created a hostile work environment.
Let me suggest the following. If you want to eliminate the judicial vagaries of what does, or does not, constitute a hostile work environment, establish a zero-tolerance workplace for this type of misconduct. Simply don’t stand for it. How?
Create an environment in which employees feel free and open complain to anyone about anything.
Take all complaints seriously and investigate.
Implements reasonable corrective action that helps ensure this conduct will not repeat. And, for this level of misconduct, for these types of statements, that action would be termination.
These steps feed themselves. It’s the circle of harassment prevention. You create an open environment to complain by investigating and correcting. Actions speak louder than words, and your attitude toward harassment must match or better your written harassment policy. And when all three of these steps work in harmony, you end up with as harassment free of a workplace as you can hope to achieve.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
Having a singles-friendly organizational culture can increase the attachment and engagement of single employees and greatly benefit the company. Here are some tips from Wendy Casper for creating one:
Create an environment that supports and includes all workers, regardless of marital, relationship or parental status. A key to doing this is the sense of support coming from supervisors. Training can be implemented to help supervisors understand how to manage their team so that all members feel connected and supported. Supervisors may not always be aware of the degree to which their employees feel or do not feel connected at work.
Wendy Casper
Provide work opportunities and assignments without regard to family/marital status or personal situations. Instead, use only job-relevant criteria such as past performance and strengths to determine work opportunities. When single workers feel that such assignments are given fairly, they are less likely to make plans to leave the firm.
Offer a wide variety of cafeteria-style employee benefits so that employees can choose those that best meet their personal work-life needs. Companies can still offer on-site day care, resource and referral programs, and health coverage for spouses and children, but they should also offer programs that will benefit single employees with no children, such as subsidies for fitness centers or education and training opportunities and even pet care that employees can use when traveling for business.
Treat all employee requests for time off, schedule flexibility or other alternative work arrangements the same, regardless of the reason.
Let job type or level drive work expectations rather than personal or family situations. This is an important concern for single workers who often are expected to work overtime or holidays more frequently than co-workers with spouses and children. Singles are often willing to volunteer for extra work and travel to benefit married co-workers with family obligations as long as it does not interfere with the important non-work roles in a single person’s life.
Clif Boutelle is a consultant for the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.
Family-friendly policies are admirable, but policies sometimes can ignore a growing segment of the employee population — single workers. Illustration by Anna Jo Beck
To attract and retain top employees, many organizations strive to create a family-friendly atmosphere.
Child care considerations, job-sharing plans and flexible work options are among the perks employers have implemented to build family oriented workplaces. Studies show that such practices often result in higher levels of employee retention, greater productivity and healthier attitudes about work.
Cynthia Horkey agrees that a family-friendly workplace can boost an organization. But Horkey, a community college grants administrator who has worked in both business and education, adds that such policies can ignore a growing yet overlooked segment of the employee population — single workers.
“I have seen mothers and fathers leave work to pick up their children from school, take them to a doctor’s appointment, or attend a school function or sports event,” she said. “Supervisors or directors generally have no problem with that, and those leaving work think nothing of taking the time off to handle these needs.”
But let a single person ask for time off to attend to a personal matter and the request is often considered unfavorably, Horkey added.
“If organizations tout family-friendliness, why not be single-friendly as well?” she asked.
Despite the best of intentions, family-friendly workplaces can neglect employees who are single — whether they are unmarried, divorced or widowed — in favor of colleagues with families. Experts say that could be a problem for organizations looking to retain them.
Single employees comprise a significant and growing segment of the American workforce. According to a 2014 Census Bureau report, there are 105 million Americans 18 and older who are divorced, widowed or never married. They comprise 44 percent of all U.S. residents with 53 percent women and 47 percent men, the report stated. Together, single employees represent 43.8 percent of the civilian labor force — hardly a demographic to be ignored.
Millennials and Marriage
A large chunk of these single workers are millennials, those ages 18 to 34 who now comprise one in three of American workers, according to the Pew Research Center. A significant number of them are single because young people are putting off marriage and are on track to remain single far longer than previous generations.
Wendy Casper has studied single workers extensively.
Wendy Casper, a professor of organizational behavior, human resource management and research methods at the University of Texas at Arlington, has studied single workers extensively. She has found that many feel their managers and organizations overlook their needs for support in the workplace in favor of their married colleagues.
“It is these kinds of perceptions, real or otherwise, that can lead to bad feelings within the workplace,” Casper said.
Casper’s research specifically focuses on single workers without dependents. One of her conclusions is that many organizations do not recognize that single workers have non-work obligations just like their married colleagues. This is often interpreted by singles as a sign that their personal responsibilities are not taken seriously.
Casper added that the emergence of family-friendly practices to help employees with child care demands and dual career issues is a positive trend that has made U.S. employers better places to work.
“The singles in my research also commend employers that offer these programs,” she said. “They just hope employers will think more broadly to support their non-work responsibilities as well.”
While singles’ non-work lives are different, they nevertheless are important, Casper said. Yet the perception persists that single workers have few non-work responsibilities, at least not the kind that married employees have.
The holidays can be an especially difficult time to accommodate all workers and their scheduling requests.
“Where I am employed, if you worked one holiday then you got the next off,” said Haley Perry, 20, a customer service associate at an outdoor gear and apparel store.
However, as a single person, she is among the first to be asked by married co-workers to change shifts so they can be with their families.
“At first, I tried to be agreeable, but often I have plans with my family and friends and finally had to say no,” she said. “There was the assumption because I was not married that I could easily change my schedule.”
Kristen Noreen, a natural resource consultant in Washington state, has seen both sides of the workplace dynamic. When she was married, Noreen was oblivious to how single co-workers were treated. However, when she divorced she began to notice that being single had given her a different status in the office.
“I saw married people receive the vacation times they requested, but single people’s requests were given lower priority,” she said. “When I wanted to spend time with my mother, it was more difficult to schedule time off. Then when my supervisor was divorced she began to work really late hours and expected me to work late because I was not married and she assumed I had the time to stay in the office longer.”
Noreen began to distance herself from her boss and finally asked for a transfer, which she thought she could easily obtain because a married co-worker was able to transfer so his children could go to the schools in their new location. The manager denied her request because she was single, saying unlike the married co-worker, she had no reason to be transferred.
“He told me that when my status changed and I could afford a house then my request would be reconsidered,” Noreen said.
Casper said the brazen assumption that people who are single have no life or responsibilities outside of the workplace is false and that, in today’s workplace, it is not wise to ignore the needs of unmarried workers because given changing demographics they will soon comprise the majority of the workforce.
Single people have obligations outside of work, Casper said. They are often asked to take care of aging parents or other relatives, many are involved in community service projects, some are working toward a college degree, and there are those who are raising children as single parents. Moreover, they often handle these responsibilities on their own, without the support of a partner to help them.
“I understand there are times when employees with children need to take care of some of these things, but if for some reason they cannot leave work, they have someone to share those situations with, whereas single people do not,” Horkey said. “If a single person has to go home to meet a plumber or electrician to fix a problem and is not given permission to leave work, he or she may have to make other arrangements, like scheduling someone after work, in the evening or on the weekend, which is a distinct disadvantage for single people.”
Casper’s research has found that many single workers feel married workers receive more flexibility in terms of duties and hours worked as well as benefits, such as paid family leave. In one of her studies of singles without children she found that 62 percent said they were treated differently from co-workers with a spouse and children, and 30 percent described different work expectations for single and married workers, “reinforcing the message that married workers’ lives are more important than the lives of singles,” she said.
Jennifer Deal is the co-author of ‘What Millennials Want from Work.’
Singles may also feel shortchanged when it comes to supervisors’ evaluations, given evidence that they sometimes subconsciously favor those with families. For instance, married men are often paid a “wage premium,” presumably because they are seen as providing for families. It’s a consideration not given to singles who managers assume do not have families to support.
“The bottom line is that the combination of the shift to later marriages resulting in more single workers is going to have substantial implications for employers,” said Jennifer Deal, senior research scientist at the Center for Creative Leadership in San Diego and co-author of “What Millennials Want from Work.”
And if trends continue, many millennials will be single parents and will have similar obligations as married people, which can affect everything from health care plans to work assignments. Organizations need to get in front of this societal shift, Deal explained.
“Millennials are looking for what everyone wants in a job — one that pays well, offers interesting work with people they like and trust, doesn’t cause them to have a career with no life, allows for promotion, and has enough development so they don’t feel they are stagnating,” she added.
Millennials are deeply concerned about job and financial stability, according to Deal. If they feel either are threatened, they will be quick to leave. However, her research shows that most prefer to stay with their employer for the long haul.
Compounding the stereotypes regarding single workers, several studies have shown they are viewed more negatively than married people and judged to be lonely, insecure, more self-centered, inflexible and unhappy. At the same time, millennials, many of whom are single, suffer from similar unflattering impressions as being self-centered and entitled and willing to jump ship for something better.
Such stereotypes and impressions can negatively affect a work environment.
“Despite that, singles don’t really resent the perks given to married workers because they understand the importance of being family friendly. They simply would like to have employers pay greater attention to their needs as well,” Casper said.
Company leaders can help their young and single employees by paying them well from the beginning of their employment. They can also implement assistance programs to help pay their college loan debt or provide tuition reimbursement plans that help with their continuing education.
“A challenge for managers is to think of their employees in terms of their life stage rather than in terms of a generation,” Deal added. “What people want, can do, and need differs more as a function of life stage than it does as a function of generation.”
Clearly what is needed is a workplace culture where the specifics of a person’s home life, including marriage, should not matter in evaluating an employee’s work, and a culture that supports everyone having a life outside of work regardless of whether that life includes having a spouse and raising children, she said.
Organizations need to understand the responsibilities their employees have outside the workplace and that requires more flexibility from the company, Deal said. Being knowledgeable about all employees — single, millennials (often the same) and married — and ensuring the organization is prepared to meet their needs is a key to a company’s success.
Developing a culture that supports all employees’ work-life balance is likely to enhance employee perceptions of both supportiveness and fairness, Casper said. She references an abundance of research that shows when employees perceive their organizations are more supportive, they tend to be more committed and satisfied and less likely to leave. Those employees also are more likely to go “above and beyond” and pitch in to help co-workers and the organization.
“When they do, everyone wins; organizations benefit when turnover of talented employees is reduced and when institutional knowledge is retained and developed over many years and companies become better places for people to work,” she said.
Clif Boutelle is a consultant for the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.
Workforce has been ranking the top 100 companies for excellence in human resources practices for the past four years. During that time companies including AT&T Inc. and Marriott International Inc. consistently ranked in the top 20. Companies like ADP and McDonald’s Corp. have sunk from the top five in 2014 to the bottom of the list or off the list entirely, while companies like The Walt Disney Co., Apple and Comcast Corp. have climbed from the bottom 10 in 2014 to the top 10 in 2017.
From left to right: Stacey Browning, president, Paycor; Pamela Harless, chief people and culture officer, Grant Thornton; Maureen Hoersten, chief revenue officer, LaSalle Network; Susan Stelter, chief people officer, West Monroe Partners.
Each company has its own unique story of how its HR practices, policies and innovations have made an impact on company culture. This year Workforce tapped into 25 companies that have never been ranked on the Workforce 100 List. We’ve explored what they’ve done in HR to move the company from ordinary to noteworthy.
Ultimate Software (No. 19) was the highest-ranked of our first timers. The Weston, Florida-based computer software company focuses on one mission: always put people first, said Vivian Maza, chief people officer at Ultimate, in an email statement.
“Our people make us who we are. We know we wouldn’t be here without them, so we’re 100 percent focused on putting them first and caring for them like family,” she wrote. “We know if we take care of our employees, they’ll take care of our customers — by creating the most innovative products and delivering the industry’s best service.”
The company has “communities of interest” for women, veterans and LGBTQIA employees, covers 100 percent of health care premiums for full-time employees and their families, and offers a 40 percent dollar-for-dollar match on 401(k) contributions with no cap.
A similar employee-first theme ran through other first-timers, including LaSalle Network (No. 38), West Monroe Partners (No. 31) and Grant Thornton (No. 92).
Co-workers celebrating PRIDE at Ultimate Software. Photo courtesy of Ultimate Software.
Good for People, Good for Business
At Chicago-based staffing and recruiting firm LaSalle Network, they view human resources as a partner for both the business and the employees. The idea is that happy people have happy clients. A subsection of the HR department, the Human Concierge Department, exists to aid new hires. It provides employees assistance for various life challenges like finding quality day care and parental care, searching for an apartment and even getting a divorce.
“[We’re]making sure they know we go above and beyond, that they know, ‘We take care of this, you take care of learning the job and learning LaSalle,’ ” said Sirmara Campbell Twohill, the company’s chief human resources officer.
It’s all about looking at someone as a whole, said Maureen Hoersten, the company’s chief revenue officer. “We don’t believe in work-life balance. We believe everything should be integrated.” If the company doesn’t know anything about an employee outside of work, she said, it’s missing a big piece of the puzzle when trying to help them develop professionally.
Treating people well creates a positive culture, she added. “The people and the rituals make the culture, not the fun things we do or the keg in the office. A lot of companies have that misconception. But your people are your culture. How you treat your people is your culture.”
Chicago-based management and technology consulting company West Monroe Partners also has a people-first culture. Treating people well is especially critical because West Monroe Partners is an employee-owned business, with 850 employee-owners.
“We embrace the idea of career equity, that for people to ultimately feel fulfilled, they have to be engaged in work, cultivate meaningful relationships here, and believe that we are an organization that will challenge them to learn and grow,” said Susan Stelter, the company’s chief people officer.
As part of this they utilize the Three Year Letter. An employee writes about what they hope to accomplish professionally and personally in the next three years. Executives have an open conversation with an employee about their goals and help with their development, even if they don’t include staying with West Monroe Partners long-term.
Public accounting firm Grant Thornton began a journey toward culture change just over three years ago. The goal was to inspire employees to bring their whole selves to work, said Pamela Harless, chief people and culture officer at the Chicago-based company. This culture journey was the umbrella under which they introduced different programs and initiatives in recent years.
One aspect of HR they decided to change was performance management, particularly fixing an outdated approach to feedback and evaluations. They opted for a more informal, continuous approach to feedback. “We’re seeing a lot of results around the ultimate goal: to have our people receive more real-time, meaningful, actionable feedback in the moment for the benefit of their own development as well as their clients,” said Harless.
Good for the Community
Corporate social responsibility was another common theme running through each company.
West Monroe Partners embraces its staff giving back to the community. One perk they offer is the 1+1+1 program. A long-time program for West Monroe, the company gives back 1 percent of their time in volunteer hours, 1 percent of its talent to do pro bono work for nonprofits, and 1 percent of its profits.
Team members at Cincinnati-based Paycor (No. 77) putting work into the community. Photo courtesy of Paycor
Employees can also apply to the Fischer Fellowship, named after one of the company’s co-founders, which offers an employee a three- to six-month paid opportunity to volunteer anywhere in the world. Eleven staff members have received the fellowship in the past three years, said Stelter.
One employee went to Ghana to teach computer and technology skills. When he found that they didn’t have a computer lab and that the designated building was dilapidated and unusable, he raised $20,000 with the help of his co-workers back home. He was able to work with West Monroe Partners’ performance services team to fix the equipment he had available and worked with their energy and utilities practice to create sustainable energy.
“Although it was one person there, it became a team effort of how we could make a change far from where we all live,” said Stelter. “We believe that’s one of those examples of career equity coming into play where people are doing work they’re passionate about. We’re doing work in our local and global community, and we’re helping people achieve their ultimate aspiration.”
Similarly, LaSalle Network has the Community Champions, a committee dedicated to companywide philanthropy initiatives. It coordinates volunteer opportunities every month.
Meanwhile, Grant Thornton this past year implemented the GTUnited program, which allows employees to choose their own cause or organization and invest community service hours throughout the year. Rather than participating in something predetermined by the employer, this is a more individualized approach to community service which the company can facilitate for employees.
Employee-owners at West Monroe Partners (No. 31). Photo courtesy of West Monroe Partners
The GTUnited program is based on the United Nations’ new Sustainable Development Goals, a set of 17 global goals to achieve by 2030, and Grant Thornton is one of the first companies to utilize them in its national volunteer strategy.
“It’s been incredibly important to our millennial population because they value so much the opportunity to contribute their passions to a broader purpose,” said Harless. “We recognize that as part of our commitment to supporting the whole person.”
Andie Burjek is a Workforce associate editor. Comment below, or email at editor@workforce.com. Follow Workforce on Twitter at@workforcenews.
I don’t say this often. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever said it, at least not in such clear-cut terms: Bravo, Society for Human Resource Management, for doing the right thing. Pulling your ads off of Fox News in the wake of the Bill O’Reilly sex harassment payoff scandal was the right choice.
It’s clear that you enjoy playing in the always-treacherous snake pit that is today’s partisan politics-infused TV news game. With the knee-jerk nature of our political spinmeisters it’s a gambit that can backfire on a moment’s notice. Yet you planted your feet and took a firm stance for ethical workplace practices and against a morally bankrupt TV talker who cost his news operation employer some $13 million because he lacked the basic capacity to act like a decent, normal person around women.
While your ad pull seems like a no-brainer, and considering O’Reilly’s one-time value as a big-time TV personality and author who’s a huge nightly draw, the reality is the high road also entailed the loss of some 4 million sets of eyeballs on your ads. There must have been some level of hand-wringing at SHRM HQ.
Yet your brief, direct statement released in the wake of the New York Times story on Fox’s massive payoffs to five women spoke volumes: “SHRM has determined to cease its current advertising on the Fox News Network,” you declared.
So let me reiterate: Bravo, SHRM, bravo.
That all said, there’s something that still sticks with me. I mean, sure, you get a standing O for this one. You took a controversial and potentially costly position, an uncommon characteristic in the hyper-cautious, don’t-make-waves world of HR.
With my respects in mind I still have to ask: What took so long?
I mean, Fox News has not exactly been the gleaming beacon of outstanding management practices, particularly in the wake of last summer’s ouster of network boss Roger Ailes for his serial sex harassment shenanigans. Coincidence that Fox News in late December named Kevin Lord as its first EVP of HR? I think not.
Lord is earning his keep amid the financial fallout of the O’Reilly scandal that saw you and dozens of other companies pull lucrative advertising dollars. Few things draw executives’ attention faster than someone or some thing affecting the bottom line.
And with O’Reilly’s firing April 19, Fox executives indeed were paying attention.
But I’m not going to ding you too hard, SHRM. Better late than never. Your stand for inclusive workplace cultures comes at a critical time.
I don’t think it’s an overstatement to say that moreso than ever, organizations need HR. Your position on Fox symbolizes that HR should not compromise standards for workplace fairness, decency and transparency no matter who is committing the transgression.
We are in an era of unprecedented entrepreneurialism not only in the United States but globally. Practically overnight, companies are springing from a handful of overworked dreamers to hugely successful business people flush with cash who nevertheless lack people management basics. The surge criss-crosses all industries — benefits, wellness, HR technology, L&D, recruiting, staffing, retail … we haven’t seen anything like this since the dawn of the internet in the late 1990s.
We’ve also witnessed an unprecedented spike in employee-employer relationship gaffes. These unicorns just can’t seem to avoid goring themselves with their own horn.
Zenefits and Uber to name just a couple have spiraled into self-induced PR nightmares that could have likely been avoided with two simple words: human resources.
I get it … sort of. What are the immediate C-suite needs when a company suddenly blows up? Finance, check. IT, yep. Sales, right away. And let’s outsource our recruiting and staffing and don’t forget to order the keggerator.
Ummm, hello, HR here; don’t look now but the staff is fornicating in the stairwells and the boss is telling racist jokes — again.
HR isn’t needed until it’s needed. And by that time it’s too late. Organizations quickly find themselves wading through a morass of costly HR-related people issues that were easily avoidable had executives — admittedly good at building a business but lousy managers — thought about quality internal governance.
Think Uber; think Zenefits; think Thinx.
And finally, think Fox News.
That’s where SHRM’s actions speak louder than words. It took longer than I would have liked, but your blow to Fox’s financial solar plexus was a shot heard ’round the HR world.
Along with other well-earned plaudits you’ve received, I’d like to add a final hearty bravo, SHRM, for practicing what you preach.
Rick Bell is Workforce’s editorial director. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.
How high is the bar for what qualifies as unlawful sexual harassment in the 4th Circuit? Pretty damn high, if you ask me. Consider that in Wilson v. Gaston County [pdf], the Court concluded that the following misconduct did not entitle the plaintiff to a jury trial on her sexual harassment claim:
Wilson contends that Putman began harassing her…, telling her she had a “nice ass,” sending her pictures of his genitals, asking for naked pictures in return, expressing his desire to kiss and have illicit forms of sex with her, and making other unwanted physical contact. This behavior persisted despite Wilson’s repeated protests.
The most serious of these events occurred in December 2011. Wilson was sitting in the passenger seat of an emergency vehicle parked at a county station when Putman reached through the open vehicle door and began to tickle and grope her. When she resisted, Putman pulled her from her seat and pinned her against the side of the vehicle, proceeding to grope her breasts, pelvic area, and genitals until a co-worker approached. Then, in January 2012, Putman walked up behind her and slapped her buttocks so hard that her sunglasses and clipboard went flying. Wilson explains that both encounters left bruising either behind her right knee or on her buttocks, respectively.
This employee, however, did not lose this case because she was subjected to this level of harassment. Instead, she lost because, according to the court, she never complained to anyone about it.
The primary objective of sexual harassment liability is a prophylactic one. Notice is therefore a predicate of employer liability because it provides an opportunity for the employer to correct and prevent sexual harassment, and to do so sooner rather than later. …
As a result, we have repeatedly held that an employee claiming harassment by a coworker bears significant responsibility in notifying the employer. Indeed, an employer cannot be expected to correct harassment unless the employee makes a concerted effort to inform the employer that a problem exists under its reasonable procedures. Particularly in large entities with a great number of workers, employers are not necessarily aware of every interaction between employees and cannot be saddled with the insurmountable task of conforming all employee conduct at all times to the dictates of Title VII, irrespective of their knowledge of such conduct.
This does not mean employers can assume a mentality of see no evil, hear no evil. In fact, an employer may be charged with constructive knowledge of coworker harassment when it fails to provide reasonable procedures for victims to register complaints. By establishing an environment hospitable to reporting, employees are encouraged to come forward, sexual harassment can be prevented sooner rather than later, and employers will not be burdened with liability for conduct of which they were unaware. (internal quotes and citations omitted.)
Thus, this court’s definition of “constructive knowledge” such that an employer cannot claim ignorance of harassment is the failure to provide reasonable procedures for victims to complain. Otherwise, according to this court, an employee cannot win a harassment case because of his or her failure to place the employer on notice of a need to investigate and remedy the offending misconduct. Because this employee admitted that she failed to complain to HR, she lost her claim.
Readers, is it appropriate to ignore workplace harassment just because no one has brought it HR’s attention? I’ll give you two choices — “no” or “no”.
Under no circumstances should you ever bury your corporate head in the sand in the face of workplace harassment. You must not ignore harassment that you know about or should know about. It is not a defense for you to close your eyes and hope that it will all be gone when you open them. Just ask Fox News (which, according to The New York Times, has settled the claims of five women for $13 million) how that strategy has worked out for it.
I believe that Wilson is an anomaly, not gospel. Should you rely on Wilson to ignore harassment that occurs in your workplace, I can guarantee a lawsuit, and I cannot guarantee that your result will be anywhere near as successful as Gaston County, which, in my opinion, dodged a huge bullet.
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.
Lots has been said about how United Airlines mishandled violently dragging a passenger from an overbooked flight. And none of it is good. Yet, make no mistake, how United CEO Oscar Munoz communicated with his company’s employees immediately following the incident did not do anything to make it any better.
What can you and your company learn from this public relations nightmare? What you say to your employees matters, a lot. Your employees are your brand ambassadors. Employees should be your best resource to spread the good word about your company. Moreover, they are usually more than willing to do so. How you communicate with them instructs how they deliver that message.
More importantly, you cannot assume what you tell your employee will remain within the four walls of your company. For better or for worse, we live in a viral society. Everything we write, say, and do is likely to end up on the internet. This story became a story because passengers took out their phones, recorded video and posted it across social web as quickly as they could. Just as quickly, Munoz’s tone deaf and insensitive statement to his employees also went viral. And he made a bad situation that much worse.
What if, however, instead of calling the passenger “disruptive and belligerent” (among other mistakes), Munoz wrote something like the following?
Dear United employees:
By now we’ve all seen the disturbing video of a United customer being forcibly removed from one of our planes in Chicago. While we can imagine the type of situation that could lead to reaction such as this, this was not that situation. Overbooked flights happen all the time, but this is not the way we (or anyone) should handle them. It escalated out of control, and for that I am truly sorry.
This unfortunate incident should have never happened, and I will do everything in my control to ensure that as long as I run this company, it never happens again. We are fully investigating how we allowed this occur, and when that investigation is complete those involved will be retrained, or, if necessary, disciplined.
In addition, I am announcing a company-wide initiative (details to follow) to retrain all United employees on the art of customer-first customer service. Our customers always come first. Without our customers, we have no United.
Should you have any questions, or would like to report (anonymously or otherwise) a customer service failure that you have witnessed, I have set up both a telephone hotline (888-555-5555) and a dedicated email account (complaint@united.com) special for these needs.
Employees, our slogan is, and shall remain, “Fly the friendly skies.” Let’s do everything in our power to live that slogan in everything that we do.
Crisis over, right?
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.
Treating people well creates a positive culture, she added. “The people and the rituals make the culture, not the fun things we do or the keg in the office. A lot of companies have that misconception. But your people are your culture. How you treat your people is your culture.”
