[vc_row][vc_column][templatera][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”2/3″] Mary Slaughter
Management consulting firm North Highland named Mary Slaughter as chief people officer. Slaughter will oversee training and development, performance management and talent retention. Slaughter has more than 25 years of HR experience in global organizations and has led cultural transformation efforts, talent retention and global training operations across several continents.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”24202″ img_size=”302×202″ add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center [vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”24203″ img_size=”302×202″ add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”2/3″] Shannon Mashburn
New York-based Alcott HR named Shannon Mashburn as director of human resources. With more than 22 years in HR services management, Mashburn most recently was first vice president, HR with New York Community Bancorp Inc. [vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”2/3″] Kathy Bowman-Williams
Law firm Day Pitney named Kathy Bowman-Williams as director of diversity and inclusion. Bowman-Williams will be a member of the firm’s senior management team, guiding the development of its strategic D&I plan and serving as a thought leader, ambassador and advocate on diversity, inclusion and equality.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”24204″ img_size=”302×202″ add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center [vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column] To be considered for People Moves, email a brief announcement and a high-resolution color photo to editors@workforce.com. Include People Moves in the subject line. Follow Workforce on Twitter at @workforcenews.
A new survey questions many of the stereotypes attached to millennial workers.
I do not like stereotypes.
They’re simplistic and occasionally – maybe more than occasionally – stupid. And while there is some truth to them in the same way people who share an astrological sign also share some personality traits, large group assumptions are so easy to disprove it’s ridiculous. There’s always one or two standouts in the group who are so fabulous. Then, if you’re reasonable, you have to question everything.
For instance, popular generational comparisons posit that most millennials are entitled and lazy. It’s just not true. You know why the older generations are so quick to pooh-pooh millennial ideas and work habits? Fear. Fear and faulty memories.
Gen X or boomer leaders see all of that energy, that certainty not yet terribly shaken by life’s turbulence, and they forget that they were once like that. We forget that we too wanted information and opportunity sooner rather than later, and that we didn’t – we don’t – necessarily want to wait until someone else is ready to give it to us.
Take my former direct report Kate, for instance. Tall, white, perennially cute with short, spiky brown hair and an excellent earring aesthetic, she’s upper middle class, funny, smart and one of the hardest workers I’ve met of any age. The girl is a rock star, and I miss her every day. She asked questions, yes, lots of them; but she was respectful, she always took the initiative, pitched in when our backs were to the deadline wall, never shirked a task – no matter how small – and she listened, very well.
She saw the value in my old lady wisdom – my words, not hers – and she soaked it up like a sponge. She also skipped off to a better job after less than two years, and I wasn’t mad at her. It was an opportunity, and one should never turn one’s nose up at a great opportunity.
You know what else? Millennials have much better attitudes about diversity and inclusion than other generations. This is my personal observation as well as the dominant message from some new research I was briefed on this week.
The Institute for Public Relations partnered with Weber Shandwick to survey more than 1,000 U.S. adults this past August, then they analyzed the data to determine various perceptions about diversity and inclusion by generation. The result was Millennials@Work: Perspectives on Diversity & Inclusion, and one of the standout findings was that 47 percent of the millennials surveyed believe that diversity and inclusion is important criteria they actively look for in potential employers.
Sarab Kochhar, director of research for the Institute for Public Relations, told me the idea that millennials are the least engaged of other generations, that they’re primarily seen as job hoppers, is faulty. Then she reiterated that D&I is an important factor in millennials’ job search. She didn’t say it explicitly, but I’m comfortable making a connection between those two pieces of information: Diversity and inclusion is important for working millennials. Maybe it’s so important, when they don’t get it on a job, they bounce.
The survey data also showed only 44 percent of millennials agree that their employers do a good job communicating their diversity and inclusion goals. That’s not good. Leslie Gaines-Ross, chief reputation strategist for Weber Shandwick, said diversity and inclusion has to be mandated and discussed at the top to cascade throughout an organization. If it isn’t, and it’s important to you as an employee, that lack is a pretty good reason to leave a gig, no?
The survey also asked respondents to what extent do they hear or see any form of discrimination at work. Gaines-Ross said across the board the numbers were pretty high, but some 69 percent of employed millennials have seen or heard something related to discrimination at work; racial discrimination is a leading topic among millennials and Gen Xers. For boomers it’s age discrimination.
Not only are they good at spotting it, according to the data, millennials are also more comfortable talking about workplace diversity and inclusion than other generations. I’ve seen that at play many times. Older adults are more likely to change the subject when D&I topics come up. They’re eager to defend themselves and are far more interested in reducing any semblance of taint than they are in listening.
Kate, for instance, is great at listening with the purpose of understanding, not waiting for her turn to talk. Even when I can see that what I’m saying is making her uncomfortable or confusing her, she doesn’t shy away from the discussion. She just listens and asks questions. That’s what we should all do when it comes to diversity and inclusion. There’s no shame in not knowing, only in refusing to learn.
I’m not saying my former direct report is the poster child for millennials. Kate’s a special person, period. But she proves my point neatly: when it comes to generational stereotypes – any stereotypes – there’s an exception to every rule.
Kellye Whitney is associate editorial director for Workforce. Comment below, or please email editor@workforce.com.
Tony Cortese of Herman Miller, left, and Amy Hiles-Maynard offer thoughts and experiences regarding age bias at work.
Amy Hiles-Maynard knew that the odds were against her when she found herself job-hunting at age 62. So she pulled out all the stops.
In addition to updating her resumé, Hiles-Maynard overhauled her social media pages with professional headshots and upbeat posts worded to convey youthful exuberance. She dyed her salt-and-pepper hair, revamped her wardrobe and scoured websites for older women that offered tips on acing job interviews and turning back the clock with clever makeup techniques.
“I’ve learned that mascara for someone who is older should never be worn on the lower lashes,” said Hiles-Maynard, a former travel industry executive. “It casts a shadow and makes you look tired.”
She searched for role models of a certain age and found her fashion muse in actress Susan Sarandon, who according to one article, favors white tuxedo shirts. Hiles-Maynard bought one.
She even resorted to stalking the parking lots of prospective employers, studying what people wear to get a sense of the company culture.
“I sat in my car with my cellphone and took the occasional photo of someone who looked particularly nice and noted differences between people in entry-level positions and those in business suits,” she said. “It was a humbling experience.”
While her methods might seem extreme, her struggles to rebuild a career at an age when many people plan to retire are likely to be familiar to people over 45.
The number of older workers is on the rise. As their ranks grow they will play an important role in the U.S. economy, according to the National Council on Aging. By 2019, more than 40 percent of Americans over 55 will be employed, making up more than one-fourth of the U.S. workforce, according to the not-for-profit advocacy group. In 2014, older workers made up 22 percent of the workforce, according to the council.
Today’s mature workers are generally healthier and more active than their predecessors and offer a wealth of experience and knowledge, yet they are far more likely to experience age-related job discrimination than their younger counterparts, according to a 2013 study by the AARP. In fact, age discrimination complaints filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have increased dramatically in recent years. Between 1997 and 2007, 16,000 to 19,000 annual complaints were filed, compared to 20,000 to 25,000 filings per year since 2008, according to the EEOC.
“It was clear that they were expecting someone younger. It seemed like they were thinking, ‘She can’t cut it.’ ” — AMY HILES-MAYNARD
The notion of retirement is changing with workers staying on the job longer than ever before. While some companies believe older employees provide a competitive advantage, most cling to outdated stereotypes, according to Ruth Finkelstein, associate director of the Robert N. Butler Columbia Aging Center at Columbia University.
“We are comfortable making fun of old people and we do it routinely,” she said. “Ageism is alive and well. We show old people as decrepit, ugly, forgetful, yet at the same time many of the most powerful people in the world are old. The pope is old, the presidential candidates (were) old, most members of Congress are old, and the Supreme Court justices are old. There is this really weird disconnect.”
The most common stereotypes of older workers are that they are expensive to employ and to insure, they are slow learners and they lag technologically, according to Finkelstein.
“The idea that older workers are more expensive to employers has been hard to prove,” she said. “Many don’t want to work full time so if there is more flexibility, such as job sharing or phased retirement, you get the benefit of their knowledge and experience without the determinant of higher cost. Also, when it comes to the idea that older workers are most expensive to insure, as rules around health insurance change, Medicare becomes the primary payer and the employer becomes the secondary payer. Then these workers become bargains.”
Ageism, or discrimination based on someone’s age and not objective performance criteria, is one of the last “isms” to be tolerated in the workforce and is far more socially condoned than sexism or racism, according to a recent report by the Society for Human Resource Management Foundation. In fact, about two-thirds of older employees say they have seen or experienced workplace discrimination and an overwhelming 92 percent say that it’s common, according a 2013 study by AARP.
“Our belief is that if we can continue to invest in employees irrespective of where they are with their career we will have a much stronger workforce.” — TONY CORTESE, SVP PEOPLE SERVICES, HERMAN MILLER
While the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 protects workers over age 40 from harassment and discrimination in all aspects of employment, such as hiring, firing, training and promotions, such cases are extremely hard to prove, said Laurie McCann, a senior attorney with AARP.
“Age discrimination is viewed by the courts and society more as an economic issue and we defer to the employer’s prerogative,” she said. “Even employees will say, ‘Well it’s their business and I understand why they want to save some money.’ But you wouldn’t say that if the employer said, ‘We want to save money so we’ll get rid of all of the women,’ but we tolerate it when it’s age.”
Age discrimination in hiring is even harder to prove, which accounts for the high number of older workers who are long-term unemployed, according to McCann. While the overall unemployment rate for older workers is slightly lower than the national average, nearly half of all those who have been out of a job for more than six months are over 50, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
“You’re putting all these resumés out there and they’re going into a black hole,” said McCann. “You don’t know who got called for the interview or why, so it’s hard to prove that age was a factor.”
It didn’t take long for Hiles-Maynard to conclude that her age was working against her. Although she had decades of executive experience in the travel industry, nearly all her cover letters went unanswered. When she did get an interview, she said that the look on the interviewer’s face spoke volumes.
“I could tell that they were surprised,” said Hiles-Maynard, who was laid off from her job as vice president of marketing for a cruise ship line in 2013. “It was clear that they were expecting someone younger. It seemed like they were thinking, ‘She can’t cut it.’ ”
After losing her job, Hiles-Maynard spent time in the vacation rental business with her husband and had a short stint at an advertising firm, but her goal was to return to the industry that she loves. She was starting to lose hope when earlier this year she read an article in Forbes magazine about an internship program for older women at a New York advertising agency. The firm’s founders were inspired to create the program after watching the Robert De Niro film “The Intern.” In the movie, De Niro plays a retired executive who applies to a senior citizen internship program at a fashion startup.
Called an “enternship,” the program at Wunderlich Kaplan Communications is designed to help older women return to the workforce with updated skills, like using social media and personal branding, according to Gwen Wunderlich, cofounder and CEO.
“You can’t say I’m too old, I don’t know this,” she said. “You need to project confidence.”
The notion that older workers are resistant to change doesn’t fly at furniture design firm Herman Miller, according to Tony Cortese, senior vice president of people services. The Zeeland, Michigan-based company is frequently recognized for its efforts to attract and retain older workers.
“Our belief is that if we can continue to invest in employees irrespective of where they are with their career we will have a much stronger workforce,” said Cortese. About one-fourth of its 8,000 employees worldwide have been there for at least 20 years.
In addition to continued training for older workers, Herman Miller also offers a phased retirement program that allows employees to gradually exit the workplace by reducing their hours.
“We recognized that we’re poised for a significant amount of potential retirements in the next decade,” Cortese said. “Phased retirement gives us more time to think about how to transfer knowledge and it helps the employee be deliberate about their retirement planning, both economically and socially. There is a significant psychological change that comes with retirement.”
One of the more unique programs that the company offers is a mentorship program called “water carriers.” The concept is based on the idea that older workers carry institutional knowledge that must be passed on to the younger generation.
“When somebody has been somewhere for a long period of time they’ve probably developed job skill expertise and know how to navigate the culture,” he said.
Employers who are not actively trying to retain and hire older workers are missing a golden opportunity to boost their bottom line, according to Kathleen Christensen, director of the Working Longer program at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, a philanthropic organization based in New York.
“If they are thinking of older workers at all, they are thinking only about graceful exits,” she said. “It’s a major missed opportunity for American businesses. They are framing the question in terms of how will our older workers leave, rather that how can we harness the potential productivity of our older Americans. That’s the real challenge.”
Rita Pyrillis is a freelance writer in the Chicago area. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.
There are a number of things that employers can do to create a workplace that is friendly to older employees, according to Ruth Finkelstein, associate director of the Robert N. Butler Columbia Aging Center at Columbia University.
Every year the center and the New York Academy of Medicine select the winners of the Age Smart Employer Awards. The initiative, which is funded by the Sloan Foundation, recognizes employers for their age-friendly policies and practices. Past winners include clothing retailer Brooks Brothers, NYU Langone Medical Center and pharmaceutical company Pfizer.
Here are recommendations for employers seeking to improve their efforts to recruit and retain older workers from the Sloan Center on Aging and Work at Boston College:
Identify opportunities for older adults to support organizational missions and/or business strategy.
Explicitly state in job notices that mature workers are welcome.
Educate managers and HR leaders to identify and address misconceptions about older workers.
Create non-virtual, alternative pathways for job applicants.
Partner with community-based and/or educational organizations to reach older adults.
Provide technology training as part of the job applicant screening process to ensure access to a wide possible pool of talent.
Use older adults as interns to try out the “job fit.”
More compelling than the decision, however, is the concurring opinion written by Judge Patricia Millett, in which she calls on the NLRB to carry out its mission to protect the rights of all employees, not just those who happen to be walking a picket line. How can a picket line magically convert misconduct that is “illegal in every other corner of the workplace” into the “unpleasantries that are just part and parcel of the contentious environment and heated language that ordinarily accompany strike activity,” she asks?
Her opinion is so well written, I’ve excerpted almost all of it below for your reading and consideration.
I write separately, though, to convey my substantial concern with the too-often cavalier and enabling approach that the Board’s decisions have taken toward the sexually and racially demeaning misconduct of some employees during strikes. Those decisions have repeatedly given refuge to conduct that is not only intolerable by any standard of decency, but also illegal in every other corner of the workplace. The sexually and racially disparaging conduct that Board decisions have winked away encapsulates the very types of demeaning and degrading messages that for too much of our history have trapped women and minorities in a second-class workplace status.
While the law properly understands that rough words and strong feelings can arise in the tense and acrimonious world of workplace strikes, targeting others for sexual or racial degradation is categorically different. Conduct that is designed to humiliate and intimidate another individual because of and in terms of that person’s gender or race should be unacceptable in the work environment … .
Nothing in the Board’s decisions has offered any plausible justification, and I can conceive of none, for concluding that the rights of workers — all workers — are protected by turning picket lines into free zones for sexually or racially abusive and demeaning conduct. Instead, the Board’s rulings dismiss such abhorrent behavior as “unpleasantries” that are just part and parcel of the contentious environment and heated language that ordinarily accompany strike activity … .
There is no question that Emily Post rules do not apply to a strike … .
So giving strikers a pass on zealous expressions of frustration and discontent makes sense. Heated words and insults? Understandable. Rowdy and raucous behavior? Sure, within lawful bounds. But conduct of a sexually or racially demeaning and degrading nature is categorically different. Calling a female co-worker a “whore” or exposing one’s genitals to her is not even remotely a “normal outgrowth” of strike-related emotions. In what possible way does propositioning her for sex advance any legitimate strike-related message? And how on earth can calling an African-American worker “nigger” be a tolerated mode of communicating worker grievances?
Such language and behavior have nothing to do with attempted persuasion about the striker’s cause. Nor do they convey any message about workplace injustices suffered, wrongs inflicted, employer mistreatment, managerial indifference, the causes of employee frustration and anger, or anything at all of relevance about working conditions or worker complaints. Indeed, such behavior is flatly forbidden in every other corner of the workplace because it is dangerously wrong and breathes new life into economically suffocating and dehumanizing discrimination that we have labored for generations to eliminate. Brushing that same behavior off when it occurs during a strike simply legitimates the entirely illegitimate, and it signals that, when push comes to shove, discriminatory and degrading stereotypes can still be a legitimate weapon in economic disputes.
And by the way, the Board is supposed to protect the rights of all employees covered by the Act … . Holding that such toxic behavior is a routine part of strikes signals to women and minorities both in the union and out that they are still not truly equals in the workplace or union hall. For when the most important labor/management battles arise and when the economic livelihood of the employer and the employees is on the line, the Board’s decisions say that racial and misogynistic epithets, degrading behavior, and race- and gender-based vilification are once again fair game … .
Nor do the Board’s decisions grapple with the enduring effects in the workplace of such noxious language and behavior. The assumption that such gender- and race-based attacks can be contained to the picket line blinks reality. It will often be quite hard for a woman or minority who has been on the receiving end of a spew of gender or racial epithets — who has seen the darkest thoughts of a co-worker revealed in a deliberately humiliating tirade — to feel truly equal or safe working alongside that employee again. Racism and sexism in the workplace is a poison, the effects of which can continue long after the specific action ends … .
Accordingly, if the Board’s decisions insist on letting the camel’s nose of racial and gender discrimination into the work environment, the Board should also think long and hard about measuring the “threats” associated with such sexually or racially degrading behavior from the perspective of a reasonable person in the target’s position, and how nigh impossible it is to cabin racism’s and sexism’s pernicious effects … .
To be sure, employees’ exercise of their statutory rights to oppose employer practices must be vigorously protected, and ample room must be left for powerful and passionate expressions of views in the heated context of a strike. But Board decisions’ repeated forbearance of sexually and racially degrading conduct in service of that admirable goal goes too far. After all, the Board is a component of the same United States government that has fought for decades to root discrimination out of the workplace. Subjecting co-workers and others to abusive treatment that is targeted to their gender, race, or ethnicity is not and should not be a natural byproduct of contentious labor disputes, and it certainly should not be accepted by an arm of the federal government. It is 2016, and “boys will be boys” should be just as forbidden on the picket line as it is on the assembly line.
Bravo. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
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.
I was invited to a party last week. A gathering of like-minded folks intending to celebrate our winning presidential pick, or to mute our disappointment with wine and cheese. I didn’t go.
This election … let’s just say, I knew I would feel more strongly about it than any other in which I’ve cast my vote to date, and I wanted the luxury of freely expressing those emotions in private.
Election night I watched the state tallies roll in one by one, and after a while, I went to sleep. I woke at 4 a.m., checked my phone, and well, the rest is history. I sent my sister a text. She replied instantly. She was also up, and we talked for a good long while.
Actually, it wasn’t so much talking. The conversation alternated between talking, hollering and crying out in that hands-to-the-ceiling type way that goes beyond plebian tears. I wanted to get it out of my system, or as much as I could, before I got to work. We talked about what to expect, how did it happen, how would it affect us, our families and friends, what should we do now?
I told my sister one thing, the same thing I told my mother and everyone else who’s asked me similar questions or expressed even a hint of vulnerability or fear: Tighten up. Take that how you like, but I mean: build good money habits, accustom yourself to discipline and enjoy life, for this too shall pass.
Honestly, what shocked and surprised me the most was not the outcome of the election — my gut told me how things would play out before they actually did — it was how my workplace reacted to the election outcome. I spent almost two hours hollering into the phone at my sister early in the morning on Nov. 9 because I wanted to be composed and professional when I got to my office.
I suspect more than one person had the same idea because my commute was eerily quiet. Even when people spoke, they whispered rather than talk in normal tones. The people I passed in my building, the mood was somber — just a little too quiet, if you know what I mean. It was as though everyone had a tight rein on themselves. That or there was some sort of informal gag order at play, muzzling the inhabitants of various offices lest they burst with emotion of one type or another.
But my boss shocked me. In our weekly editorial staff meeting he opened the floor to a conversation about the election. He literally gave us that forum in which to safely air our feelings about what’s happening — or what may happen — in the country, and it was surprising. Welcome, but surprising. I don’t recall ever having such a conversation before, nor feeling the need for one. This time around? Let’s face it — there’s little to no way a working American won’t feel some type of way about the outcome of the 2016 presidential election
So, we sat around the table, with the door closed, and we talked. We shared general impressions, debated implications for our work as journalists and how we planned to cover various aspects of related content for our readers. We shared personal ondits on how things might go for us, and we were fervently appreciative for the opportunity to speak freely. It was refreshing, it was a relief, and it was completely unexpected.
There are backgrounds and beliefs that we don’t bring to work because they just aren’t part of our jobs. Political beliefs are a prime example. They are often too unexpected, too judgmental, too personal, or too potentially explosive if the mantle of professionalism that most of us wear should grow thin or brittle. Employers don’t encourage political discussion — many actively forbid it — for this reason.
Whatever side of the political fence you may be on, once the election hubbub has died down, we still have to work together. Anything said in the heat of the moment, political passions expressed, unusual or unexpected beliefs aired, these things won’t be forgotten, and an otherwise valuable working relationship could be damaged. That my employer should voluntarily open this particular Pandora’s box and invite us all to unpack its contents said much for our welcoming stance on diversity of thought.
It spoke volumes about our culture and how inherently generous, collaborative and respectful our workplace is. It also cast a bright new shine on the phrase freedom of speech, and not just because as journalists we live and die by those weighty words. For some this activity might not work as well.
For instance, if your organization depends on customers. Grubhub CEO Matt Maloney found himself on fire after he sent out a memo clearly weighing in on one side of the presidential coin vs. the other.
That likely didn’t happen at my company because no one explicitly said, pro this, con that. There was no debate over right or wrong. We just talked, and we did so privately. There was no outward or public declaration.
I can only hope in the months and years ahead that other employers, that other people, adopt that same generosity of spirit and action as we navigate this new political landscape. I think they will. I can already see it.
For some, right now it’s colored with resignation, muddied by disbelief, disappointment and even anger. But the sentiment seems widespread: with open hearts, minds and mouths, we will overcome and advance together.
Kellye Whitney is associate editorial director for Workforce. To comment, please email editor@workforce.com.
Leaders must help establish a balance between politics and the workplace.
With the election just a couple of weeks away, one thing seems certain regardless of the outcome: It’s tough being American right now. Anxieties and tensions are high, and most of us feel threatened by the political rhetoric and what’s at stake, not to mention regular news about police shootings and other violence.
As we grapple with redefining ourselves as a nation, forward-thinking leaders in organizations are wondering: Do I say something about this? Do I do something? If so, what should I do?
The stakes are high and impact tangible. Like it or not, employees and leaders bring their fears and frustrations to the workplace, affecting communication, team dynamics, accountability, productivity and employee engagement. On top of that, organizations are struggling with new laws and policies about bathroom access, same-sex marriage and workplace safety. Add constantly evolving technology and the mandate to serve an increasingly diverse population, it’s a wonder we don’t see more nervous breakdowns and violence at work.
In deciding how to lead in the age of Donald Trump and #BlackLivesMatter, consider the following:
Inclusion means everyone is included. This includes Trump supporters, #BLM supporters, Clinton supporters, Bernie Sanders supporters, former cops and young activists alike. Diversity and inclusiveness isn’t about including only the type of diversity you like.
Inclusion does not mean all behaviors are included. People don’t have to agree on politics or even values to do effective behaviors that are experienced as cordial, respectful, professional and productive by others. Our nation — and others — were founded on this principle, and still strive to put it into practice.
The story you’re telling about conflict and change determines how you lead. Does our societal turmoil signal the destruction of our nation’s fabric? Labor pains of our emerging demographics and shifting values? An opportunity? The story you choose to tell about what this means and what’s possible will guide your decision making, problem solving, employee engagement and financial decisions.
Taking a stand on important issues of the day isn’t necessarily a “partisan” act, but a moral one driven by mission and values. A growing number of organizations (Huffington Post, USA Today, The Atlantic, AT&T, Ben & Jerry’s) have made clear, public statements about race, Donald Trump or #BlackLivesMatter. Doing so may be exactly what your target market and employees — especially millenials — need to hear. Doing so may be an act of integrity in clear alignment with your vision, mission and organizational values. And while endorsing a political candidate might be strategically unwise or violate a core business agreement (as for many nonprofits), many issues that are labeled as “partisan” really aren’t. The #BlackLivesMatter platform is clear and could be supported by any political candidate or party, and one might make a statement about Trump’s behavior without endorsing Clinton.
This is about the legacy you create and the legacy you leave. As a leader and as an organization, how do you want to be remembered? What kind of future are you preparing to thrive in? What future are you creating? We celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. but he was widely unpopular and considered a dangerous radical in his day. What side of history do you want to be on?
If you decide to take a stand:
Articulate the clear business case for your stand in terms of impact on your employees and customers, fulfillment of your mission and values, and the legacy you’re creating.
Provide clear, reasonable expectations for workplace behavior, and hold everyone equitably This includes top leadership. Banning conversations, personal opinions or expressions of support for candidates or movements may suppress energy that could be put to better use. However, behaviors that can be fairly and clearly identified as bullying, sexual harassment, disrespect, workplace violence, creating a hostile work environment or interfering with business operations should not be tolerated. Weigh the pros and cons of your policies and expectations in alignment with your values and business goals, focusing on impact over the intent of a behavior.
Go to the facts whenever there is confusion or disagreement. Research shows which direction our country’s demographics, values and beliefs have long been headed. Just look at Millenials. There are abundant data on what Trump has said and done, and the impact he’s having on kids and our mental health. There’s clear information about whether #BlackLivesMatter is a hate group, and what their goals are. While humans tend not to change our opinions based on facts (regardless of political affiliation), insisting on them may eventually cause a shift, or at least provide clear support for your position.
Listen to fully understand. One of the reasons movements like the tea party and #BlackLivesMatter and candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are so popular is because they appeal to a growing number of Americans who rightfully feel ignored, shut out, abused and talked down to by traditional institutions and leaders. When an employee or team has a concern — whether it’s related to the social issues of the day or not — give sufficient time to listen deeply from a place of curiosity, with the goal of fully understanding the person’s feelings and motivations as well as thoughts.
Get curious. Curiosity and anxiety live in the same area of the brain. Getting curious is one of the best ways to reduce your anxiety and increase your creativity. Getting curious about another’s story can reduce their anxiety, build a positive relationship and co-create workable solutions.
As the late author and philosopher Eric Hoffer said, “in times of change, the learners will inherit the earth, while the knowers will find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world … that no longer exists.” It’s up to leaders to decide which world we, and our organizations, will inhabit, and learn what’s necessary.
Susana Rinderle is president of Susana Rinderle Consulting LLC. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.
While the Access Hollywood tape has been making news for the last week or so, mainly for what Donald Trump said, there is something else that has stood out: Billy Bush’s ‘role’ in the whole affair. Bush’s attorney reportedly said, “If Billy had been passive or responded, ‘Shut the f— up’ to Trump, Billy would have been out of a job the next day.” This certainly does raise some questions about behavior in the workplace. Is laughing considered a form of agreement with something a supervisor, co-worker or client says? Of course Bush went a step further, he didn’t just laugh along, he also made some comments I think we can all agree are inappropriate (especially at his place of work).
I want to come at this from a different angle than The Huffington Post, which attacked Bush for playing the roll of Trump’s wingman. What do you do, as an employer, when you learn of harassment about which no one has complained?
The short answer is you better do something, and you cannot do nothing. An employee alleging sexual harassment by a coworker must still establish that the employer is liable because it knew or should have known of the harassment, yet failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action. When does an employer “know or should know” of harassment? Either when: (1) an employee complains or otherwise makes the employer aware; (2) a supervisor or manager witnesses the inappropriate conduct and either reports it or remains silent; or (3) when a workplace is so permeated with harassment that is unreasonable for an employer to claim ignorance.
What steps must an employer take when it learns of harassment, whether or not an employee has complained? These five steps (which I’ve outlined before) are critical:
Be prompt. Upon receipt of a complaint of harassment, a business must act as quickly as reasonably possible under the circumstances to investigate, and if necessary, correct the conduct and stop from happening again.
Be thorough. Investigations must be as comprehensive as possible given the severity of the allegations. Not every complaint of offensive workplace conduct will require a grand inquisition. The more egregious allegations, however, the more comprehensive of an investigation is called for.
Consider preliminary remedial steps. While an investigation is pending, it is best to segregate the accused(s) and the complainant(s) to guard against further harassment or worse, retaliation. Unpaid suspensions can always retroactively be paid, for example, and companies are in much worse positions if they are too lax instead of too cautious.
Communicate. The complaining employee(s) and the accused employee(s) should be made aware of the investigation process—who will be interviewed, what documents will be reviewed, how long it will take, the importance of confidentiality and discretion, and how the results will be communicated.
Follow through. There is nothing illegal about trying remedial measures less severe than termination in all but the most egregious cases. A valued employee may be no less valued after asking a co-worker about her underwear, for example. If the conduct continues, however, the discipline must get progressively more harsh. If you tell an employee that termination is the next step, you must be prepared to follow-through.
What you cannot do, however, is bury your corporate head in the sand. Under no circumstances can you, as an employer, ignore harassment that you know about or should know about. It is not a defense for you to bury your organizational head in the sand and hope that it will all be gone when you emerge into the sunlight. If opt for the “ostrich,” all you will see after shaking the sand off your face is an expensive (and possibly indefensible) harassment lawsuit.
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.
Bashing white people does nothing to solve the greater issues around workplace diversity and inclusion.
A white man emailed me recently, a software developer I’ll call Portland, since that’s where he comes from. He gave me permission to post and discuss his email — thank you, sir — but he asked to remain anonymous, which I respect. This is sensitive stuff, and while many of us are open to learning, we don’t need drama.
His words are in italics. My responses are in plain text:
I’m a software developer working for the City of Portland, Oregon; and I recently attended a meeting in my organization entitled “Celebration of Hispanic Heritage.” It was the first time I decided to go to — perhaps — “passively” participate in what the city calls an “Equity in Motion” event in a series of events/meetings meant to empower and help dignify “disenfranchised” members of the community — but really — to educate our own people.
This could be me — a professional wordsmith — reading too much into this, but if those quotes around passive and disenfranchised are your additions, Portland, I’m sensing some skepticism or at least disagreement with the foundation of the gathering. That’s OK. Skepticism can be healthy.
It was not at all what I was expecting. It had nothing to do with Hispanic Heritage nor was it a celebration. At the beginning of the meeting, our lovely host played a video depicting both Whites and Blacks as goofy imbeciles saying all sorts of careless, politically incorrect things in various conversations and settings with a “White Hispanic” woman who’s barely offended and just looks at her offender with a smile. This video was not only offensive to Blacks and Whites; but it was even more offensive to Hispanics because before the video was started, the audience was told the video is just meant in humor [to break the ice]. I thought it was in poor taste because it makes light of the very identity and dignity of Hispanics and sets a tone that equality and equity need not be taken seriously.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, Portland. It’s important not to buy into and feed stereotypes — especially negative ones — even among members of the same group. Always, always, always portray strong, realistic, positive, diverse images so we can change the narrative, and constructively challenge the bias and ideas that pigeonhole minorities. Only then can we broaden the collective mindset with diverse thoughts, ideas and accurate, three-dimensional human portrayals. We don’t need to coon and perform to break the ice. A hello might work just as well.
You have to understand I work in a relatively professional environment where everyone is generally courteous to each other. That is, the City of Portland really doesn’t have a problem with employees with different backgrounds getting along. The real problem is people over socialize, but that’s another story. No less, it’s not like we’re running a failing trucking business with a bunch of disgruntled workers saying hateful things about each other and their boss behind their backs. Although the racial diversity of Portland is relatively low compared to other metropolitan areas, and the diverse makeup of our organization in fact relatively proportional to the population and more diverse than the population; the Office of Equity still makes a good effort to get the word out in an effort to hire more minorities.
Then the complete opposite occurred. The rest of the meeting took a 180 and consisted of the few Hispanic employees we have sharing where they’re from, how they got here, and then depressing instances of hate and/or discrimination they’ve suffered [from White people]. I put “White people” in brackets because the offenders were not always racially identified but implied to be White. This is the part that got me angry, because I felt like it was an attack on White people — to shame us — and, alas, on myself (as a White person).
Portland, I’m not being flip here, but this was a meeting for Hispanic people. Is it appropriate for you, a visitor, to deny them an opportunity to get some issues off their chest? The Hispanic people who were airing their concerns were upset too, and they are entitled to talk about why — just as you are — since they feel they’ve been mistreated. This was an appropriate venue for them to share their stories.
Therefore, listen; and listen to learn without taking things personally. Unless someone was talking to you, this isn’t about you. That’s easier said than done, I know. But part of creating inclusive cultures where diversity is truly a business advantage requires that we become comfortable with discomfort.
Discomfort is natural in any environment where there is difference, so we who appreciate diversity must therefore become agile, even diplomatic in how we deal with those differences. It would be wonderful if every meeting was candlelight and roses, but that doesn’t happen in most meetings, let alone one for an employee resource group. We can’t reasonably expect that minorities won’t have grievances, and then if they do, not to air them in an appropriate venue because there’s a white person present who might be offended.
But if there was no follow up, no discussion of action items, no learning, no takeaways or anything after the grievance airing, I query the group leader’s effectiveness. Or, I query the purpose for the meeting.
I think the audience had been duped with a bait and switch, if you will. People coming to the event were expecting some celebratory content such as, say, the historic triumphs of Mexican-Americans with the help of Cesar Chavez and perhaps a proud cultural exhibit.
I think you were expecting celebratory content. But I wonder if the other participants were. I know what the title was, what theme was advertised, but somehow I doubt most of the attendees were actually expecting a cultural exhibit. Employee resource groups have traditionally been opportunities to promote community and support for specific groups within the workplace. The best ones also have keen business connections, and they contribute with new products, services, process improvements, etc.
However, Portland, I can totally understand your shock when the content veered so sharply off course. It was quite natural to think there was something underhanded going on. To bill something as a historical celebration, for instance, and then not talk about historical celebrations at all is essentially a lie. At best, the meeting’s origins and purpose were not well conceived or thoughtfully constructed.
But it turned out to be a session of indirect bashing. I was very emotional by the end and when the host asked for feedback, a co-worker spoke for me saying the same. The host’s response was very callous: “Maybe you shouldn’t take it so personally,” she said, as she was turning away and continued on with the conclusion of the meeting. It seemed as if for an instant she was making a subtle statement, “That’s what you get for hurting us.” The host is a much older, nearly elderly African woman (actually from some country in Africa).
Her response does seem short. It wouldn’t have hurt her to address your concerns, at least suggest that you guys talk afterwards. But the personal comment, I’m afraid I agree with that. The meeting wasn’t for you. It also wasn’t about you. Therefore, it shouldn’t have been offensive to you. Easier said than done, I know, but this was no deliberate “attack on Portland day.” Consider the source, the venue, the unwritten purpose of the meeting. It could be it should have been renamed, “Get crappy treatment off your chest at 4 p.m.” But if it were, I doubt there would have been meeting space available.
As soon as I got home I started researching this phenomenon of diversity training in the workplace and what I’m discovering is a convenient indirect tactic of beating up on White people which is growing in popularity. As someone who came to that event willing to champion the cause of diversity, I felt betrayed and that an injustice had been done. On the other hand, if the host had prepared us by letting us know beforehand the intent is not to shame; then I would have been much more understanding and accepting of the content. But it seems the audience was tricked.
This wasn’t diversity training. It was an employee resource group meeting. And you can look up and find support for almost anything on the internet. Further, if you’re a true champion for diversity, one bad meeting won’t throw you completely off course. If anything, it will fire your passions even more because you’ll see the work that needs to be done, and you’ll gird your loins to do it because it’s not easy. It’s a battle, uphill, and for every success there are a dozen failures.
Your feeling of injustice is just that — your feeling. It’s not this group’s responsibility to pat you on the back and congratulate you for wanting to be open-minded. Also, you say the audience was tricked? But you only mention one other person who was upset. I don’t know if it’s appropriate for you to speak collectively for this group or audience.
However, I agree with you that a bit of context could have alleviated some ill feelings. A preface like, “I see we have some new visitors today. Please don’t be alarmed if we get a little personal. This is a safe space for us to share our workplace concerns,” would have been appropriate.
How do you feel about this tactic of White-bashing to audiences who are caught “off-guard?”
I think white-bashing stinks, Portland. It’s callous, silly and purposeless. It does nothing to solve the greater issues around workplace diversity and inclusion. On an individual level it barely gives you even momentary satisfaction. Organizationally, it may actually contribute to the very problems that lead to white bashing to begin with.
As for you being caught off guard. This was your first employee resource group meeting. Maybe you should attend a few more. Make some notes. Absorb what’s being said critically, and consider the speakers’ positions, concerns and how you might feel or behave in their shoes. Ruminate, and let your emotions cool. Then come forward and objectively state your opinions and offer suggestions on how the leader could make the meetings more productive, and more importantly, more inclusive.
Portland did talk to the employee resource group leader and share his suggestions to allow all groups involved to be able to comment and to keep the material at least as positive as it is negative. This is a follow up email he sent to me:
My final suggestion (kindly expressed) was to seek out an education in intergroup dynamics (social psychology) and intergroup conflict reduction. I don’t think my message got through, though. She insisted that an event for a certain group is their “space” and that it would be wrong to have White people controlling/changing up the material.
My first thought when I saw the phrase “kindly expressed” was, unasked-for assistance, no matter how well intended, is in fact interfering patronage. Portland, you may think the leader needs conflict reduction skills training, but that’s a sweeping judgment based on your attendance at one meeting. Further, you didn’t actually detail any conflict within the group. The conflict was with you and your reaction to the group’s activities.
The group does seem to have some issues: It was wrongfully billed/labeled, there were offensive images and activities, and on the whole it was not inclusive of other cultures or of diversity of thought.
Employee resource groups should be about teachable moments. Here, there were missed learning opportunities on both sides. But the dialogue has started, which is great. Now it’s time to do the work to find some consensus.
I get her point, but I don’t think she quite gets mine — that White people are being inadvertently demonized. I think she wants the White audience to go away feeling badly perhaps as a strategy. But most of us have been victimized by persons of another race or gender or sexual orientation. Seems like Whites are being singled out anymore based on the historical misgivings of the rich and powerful (who happened to be White). I can deal with the history lesson, but I’m not convinced of the suggestion of the case in today’s environment that Whites consciously oppress non-Whites (which is what these events are really suggesting). Really? Is it 1971 still?
Portland, I think your intentions are good. But you seem to have some pretty healthy skepticism about the purpose for the employee resource group or maybe about diversity and inclusion work in general? You say you’re not convinced that Whites consciously oppress non-Whites “which is what these events are really suggesting.” So, does that mean the opinions or experiences you heard from the Hispanic employee resource group members are untrue or exaggerated?
For many minorities it is very much still 1971. Our feelings about the reality of our lives and experiences are routinely denied. Many experts — of which I am not one — say that’s why racism, sexism, gender bias and all the rest of the -isms have not been successfully routed from life and from the workplace, because so many — particularly those who have power to change things — deny they actually exist.
Remember, just because these things are not a part of your daily reality — or your family, friends and even your community’s reality — doesn’t mean they aren’t incredibly real for others.
Discrimination is not happening like it used to. I would, for example, love to work with a team of Black co-workers but there aren’t hardly any Black computer programmers because they’re not going to college for that. What’s really going on here? Are we addressing the real, root problems? Or just scratching at the surface?
No, discrimination is not happening like it used to. Some things are not as prevalent, but it’s also happening in new ways now. It is still very much alive. We’re fighting many of the same battles we’ve been fighting for the past 40-plus years.
So, please, Portland, be careful with blanket statements. You don’t actually know what Black people are going to school for, do you? I have covered quite extensively the issues that women and minorities face not just pursuing and then advancing in tech careers, but even thriving in the academic environments they need to learn necessary job skills.
I’m grateful Portland was brave enough to write and that he gave me permission to share his words. He was open about his experience and his feelings around diversity, and that is important and rare — not just for a white man but for most of us. I hope I was reasonable and objective in how I addressed different points in his letter.
Some learning needs to take place. Not just for him, but for the employee resource group leader too. But he’s right to question: What’s really going on here? Are we just scratching at the surface when it comes to workplace diversity?
Kellye Whitney is Workforce’s associate editorial director. Comment below, or email editors@workforce.com.
AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson recently addressed some 1,700 employee-resource group members about race. Not about business and race or the future or new products and services in a racial context; he spoke candidly about race, period.
He began by addressing the latest news from Dallas, Charlotte, police and black men killed — you’ve likely heard all about these major headlines — then he settled in and made things personal. He talked about his close friend Chris, who is black, and who he has known for many years. But it was only recently that Stephenson learned what a fraught history Chris had and realized how much it shaped his world view.
Stephenson spoke of the shame he felt for not knowing surprising and intimate details about his friend’s life, details and history that typically define a friendship but that were completely omitted from this one. Then, like all great storytellers, he connected this personal nugget from his own life to his theme around racial tension: “If two very close friends of different races don’t talk openly about this issue that’s tearing our communities apart, how do we expect to find common ground and solutions for what’s a really serious, serious problem? … Our communities are being destroyed by racial tension, and we’re too polite to talk about it.”
That’s basically where we are. Despite all of the evidence that screams, “there’s a big, big problem!” People still don’t want to talk about race. People don’t want to talk about gender bias and inequity, racial injustice, the cruelty and humiliation LGBT and disabled people are forced to endure on a daily basis. These topics are almost taboo in a way despite being perennially in the news because in the workplace, and in corner offices, the stigma around them lingers; and when it comes time for action, even the best intentions wither and die from lack of sustainable fuel.
I respect Stephenson so much for addressing racial tension head on. No dissembling, no politically correct waffling, he was thoughtful, but direct. Direct is very, very good.
Don’t get me wrong. Every conversation at work can’t and should not be about race or diversity. And it’s important to be polite, to be considerate. But when polite and considerate lead to a highly inequitable status quo that pats those concerned on their collective heads until occasional tensions dissipate without making change? When incidents are repeated and identified and then neatly swept into a file or brushed aside in favor of business as usual? That’s where direct becomes essential. Business as usual isn’t going to work much longer. I’d be willing to bet Stephenson knows that.
Forget the elephant in the room. He wants his customers, business partners and employees to know exactly where he stands on the racial divide — then they can act accordingly. “It takes work, it takes time, it takes emotion, and you’re gonna have to understand where the other one is coming from,” he said, “but we have to start communicating. And if this is a dialogue that’s going to begin at AT&T, I feel like it probably ought to start with me.”
He spoke again about his friend Chris and how his confusion with Chris’ response to certain issues has been replaced by a healthy dose of humility. And the next part in the speech literally made me swoon. I was nodding and clapping at my computer like I was seeing the event live. He said, “We should not say all lives matter to justify — ” and then the crowd erupted, and I missed the rest, but you get the picture.
For those who still don’t get it, he offered some fabulous examples to illustrate just why the phrase all lives matter in response to black lives matter is ridiculous. And then he moved into my favorite part of any diversity discussion, the action part, the what now/what are we going to do differently?
“When we talk about race let’s begin the discussion with why. Why does my colleague feel this way? If we can understand why, it’s so much more likely that we can begin to agree on what needs to be done. You guys, the AT&T ERGs, you are a model for America. Look around. Look around, folks. It does not get any more diverse than this.
“I’m not asking you to be tolerant of each other. Tolerance is for cowards. Being tolerant requires nothing from you but to be quiet and to not make waves, holding tightly to your views and judgments without being challenged. Do not tolerate each other. Work hard. Move into uncomfortable territory and understand each other … I encourage you, please. Let’s go out and understand each other, OK?”
I legitimately want to switch to AT&T just because of the brave and sincere stance this leader took on a controversial issue that is close to so many hearts, and I doubt I’m the only one.
If you don’t believe that race, LGBT, gender and all of the different dimensions of diversity and inclusion that I discuss in this blog, and that so many discuss in different media around the world, are important for business, you are deluding yourself.
After that speech makes the rounds do you think AT&T will have recruiting problems? No. Some of the best and brightest will beat down this company’s doors to join up with a leader who shares and is vocal about their views on the importance of racial diversity.
Will AT&T have trouble finding sponsors for its events? No. Will it have difficulty finding business partners? No. Even if it didn’t have these issues before, now that Stephenson has made his views crystal clear people, savvy companies will clamor to align themselves with him.
Some may shy away, of course, but honestly, who cares? The world is diverse, customers are diverse, businesses need to be diverse if they are to thrive and not just survive, and Stephenson knows that. That’s why he went out on the ledge and thumbed his nose at tolerance and the status quo, to let key stakeholders know who he is and what his company stands for.
Leaders, your customers and employees are watching you. They note where you stand, where you fall down, and where you refuse to stand. Randall Stephenson had church the other day. And his pews weren’t filled with church goers but with employees and customers and evangelists for his brand.
His actions were brave, smart, thoughtful and absolutely great for business. We would all do well to follow this leader’s example.
Kellye Whitney is the associate editorial director for Workforce. To comment, email editor@workforce.com.
