Category: Workplace Culture

Posted on

How Companies Can Support Cancer Survivors in the Workplace—and Manage Costs

Esther Yarbrough had recently started a new job as the executive director of a membership organization when she got the news—breast cancer.

She was stunned. Just three months earlier in 2011 her predecessor had died of pancreatic cancer leaving the group’s members and staff feeling adrift. She had stepped in to take charge. The last thing that Yarbrough wanted to do was panic her colleagues or raise doubts about her ability to do the job.

“It was very important to me to keep things going,” says Yarbrough, 60, who was diagnosed in 2011. She heads an association of independent physicians in Georgia. “I wasn’t sure how our association members would react.”

She responded like the take-charge executive that she is, doing research on treatment options, getting a second opinion, scheduling a lumpectomy at a cancer center in Illinois, and, for the most part, keeping the news to herself. She had surgery to remove a small tumor on a Tuesday and was back on the job on Wednesday working from her hospital bed. She told her two staff members but never said a word to the association’s board of directors or its members.

Thanks to cutting-edge medical technology and early detection, she didn’t have to.

Yarbrough received a new treatment that allows breast cancer patients to receive radiation therapy in a single dose during surgery, sparing them weeks-long rounds of radiation and all of the side effects that come with it. And because her cancer was discovered early, she did not need chemotherapy. Few people knew that she was ill.

“No one had a clue,” she says.

Yarbrough is one of a growing number of survivors who have had to balance cancer and career—returning to work after receiving what was once viewed as a death sentence. There are nearly 14 million cancer survivors today compared with just under 10 million in 2001, and those numbers are steadily rising, according to the National Cancer Institute.

Advancements in early detection and treatment mean that cancer survivors are being diagnosed younger and living longer. Nearly half are between 19 and 64 years old, which means there are more cancer survivors in the workplace than ever before. That poses new challenges to employers as they struggle to control health care costs and help their workers lead healthier lives.

“Cancer has grown in importance to employers as the frequency of diagnosis increased,” says Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health, an association of more than 300 large U.S. employers. In response, the Washington, D.C.-based business group has developed a series of online tool kits to help employers design medical and pharmacy benefit plans and other programs that support cancer patients and their families. The tool kits will be published in An Employer’s Guide to Cancer Treatment and Prevention later this year.

“We have much better detection methods so people are diagnosed earlier and are under treatment for a longer period of time. It’s important that employers help manage and support employees that have been diagnosed through a comprehensive benefit plan and other programs that support family members.”

Cancer is no longer the taboo topic that it was in the 1950s and ’60s when few talked about the disease, including doctors who frequently withheld the diagnosis from their patients. Given the low survival rates, many feared destroying their patients’ hopes of recovery. It wasn’t until well-known figures like first lady Betty Ford and President Ronald Reagan began talking publicly about their bouts with cancer in the 1970s and 1980s that the stigma began to fade.

Today, with celebrities like Good Morning America co-anchor Robin Roberts and TV actress Christina Applegate sharing their cancer stories with the world, the disease has emerged from the shadows. And the workplace is where many survivors share the news.

“A lot of people find out about their diagnosis at work, so a lot of people don’t get to decide when or if to tell,” says Kate Sweeney, executive director of Cancer and Careers, a program of the Cosmetic Executive Women Foundation that provides online resources for employees with cancer. “If they do share the news, more and more employees are telling people in the workforce. There is less of a stigma than there was even 10 years ago when we launched our organization. People realize that a cancer diagnosis isn’t a death sentence.”

Sweeney says that those who decide to keep the news a secret are driven by the fear that their careers will suffer. “They don’t want to be labeled as someone who can’t be productive. They worry that they’ll be passed over for promotions.” And sometimes well-meaning employers might withhold certain opportunities for fear of overwhelming an employee who is battling cancer, she says.

For Jonny Imerman, who was diagnosed with testicular cancer in his mid-20s, the thought of keeping his diagnosis from his co-workers never occurred to him.

“What is the fear? I realize that those who are executives or CEOs don’t want to be perceived as weak or as losing a battle, but I don’t agree personally,” says Imerman, 38. “Cancer is part of life.” He was working in commercial real estate in Detroit when he was diagnosed in 2001. A year later he quit his job, moved to Chicago and founded Imerman Angels, a one-on-one support group for cancer survivors.

“Today, younger people are more open about these things,” he says. “They get a diagnosis and they go straight to Facebook and say, ‘OMG, I have thyroid cancer.’ “

Employers are realizing that they must focus on cancer care as they look for ways to manage health care costs. They can’t afford not to.

Cancer costs employers an estimated $264 billion a year in medical care and lost productivity, according to 2012 figures from the American Cancer Society. While cancer patients represent just 1.6 percent of the privately insured population, they account for 10 percent of employers’ medical claim costs and a large share of long-term and short-term disability claims, according to the National Business Group on Health.

And with 80 percent of working-age cancer patients returning to their jobs, employers must develop “a comprehensive approach to fighting cancer through general medical benefits, behavioral health programs and pharmacy recommendations,” including employee assistance programs, says Ron Finch, vice president of the business group. “As employers, we need to learn about disability coverage, family leave, EAPs to help the patient, the family or co-workers as they experience cancer,” he says.

At Ameren Missouri, a public utility company based in St. Louis, cancer is becoming a topic of growing importance, according to Mark Lindgren, chief human resources officer.

“About two to three years ago we started to launch targeted programs around cancer and cancer prevention, and began looking at our benefit plans with a cancer lens,” he says. That meant making sure that the company’s health plans focused on cancer prevention and that wellness programs included cancer-specific initiatives like free screenings.

In addition to health and wellness benefits, Ameren also has generous short-term and long-term disability programs, Lindgren says, and allows employees to donate their vacation days to a sick co-worker if needed.

“We had a gentleman a year ago who had throat cancer, and I was amazed at how much workplace support he got,” he says. “Employers today recognize that people want to be supported because that helps alleviate much of the stress when they are in that situation.”

Helping employees navigate treatment and providing them with information and resources is critical in ensuring that they return to work as productive and engaged employees, says Tenbroeck Smith, a behavioral researcher at the American Cancer Society.

“Why does a survivor care if he or she has a job?” he asks. “Financial compensation, health insurance for sure, but also for social support and a sense of purpose and well-being.”

Without supportive co-workers, Todd Lovern, 50, says he can’t imagine how he would have made it through a devastating diagnosis. In 2010, the 50-year-old field-service engineer with GE Healthcare in Seattle was diagnosed with stage 4 colon cancer.

The father of four was training to run a marathon in the late summer of that year when he began noticing some strange symptoms like frequent urination and bowel movements and weight loss. At first he attributed the symptoms to his coffee habit and rigorous training regimen—he was running 40 to 50 miles a week.

His doctor suggested a colonoscopy. Lovern wasn’t too worried at first. He was 48, and 90 percent of colon cancers are found in men over 50. But he was in the 10 percent, and the prognosis wasn’t good. The cancer had spread to his liver.

“I was in shock for about three to four hours before it sunk in that I had quite a battle ahead of me,” he says. “I called my manager and explained to him that I was diagnosed and that I’d probably need some time off. His reaction was amazing. He was obviously upset. He was shaken by the news, but he was very caring.”

In fact, Lovern says that everyone from his general manager to the company’s HR representatives to his co-workers “took a leadership role” in making sure that he and his family had all the support and information they needed.

“My boss and HR told me that I had six months of short-term disability but not to worry about it because, ‘We’ve got your back,’ ” he says. “That was awesome to hear. It took some of the financial worry out of it. My wife works part time and makes a fourth of what I make. I thought we might have to move out of our house. But HR said you’re good for a year at 100 percent of my pay if I needed it. They were very generous.”

Lovern underwent aggressive chemotherapy and several grueling surgeries and procedures, but today he is cancer free. While he credits GE’s comprehensive benefit plan with helping him get back on his feet, he says that the emotional support of his colleagues got him through some of his darkest times.

“Two days after I told my boss the news, I got a FedEx box from our general manager,” says Lovern, his voice thick with emotion. “It was full of cards from my co-workers, people I don’t even work directly with. She would travel around the country and every week for months she made sure that I had a FedEx box filled with cards. Some days I really needed those cards to get through the week.”

But some survivors like Gail Nelson, a health care industry executive, find that old stereotypes can linger, especially when it comes to women in male-dominated industries.

Nelson, a senior vice president at MedSpeed, a medical courier and transportation company in Elmhurst, Illinois, was first diagnosed with breast cancer in 2003 when she worked for a different company. She says that her boss was very supportive, but Nelson chose not to share the news with her staff.

“When you’re diagnosed with cancer, you worry about the perception people will have,” she says. “I was afraid that I’d be pushed aside in terms of promotions and career opportunities. I had been climbing the ladder a long time without a hiccup and as a woman you have to climb twice as hard, twice as fast. You don’t want cancer to derail your progress.”

Her treatment was successful and her career flourished, but four years later the cancer returned. By then she was at a different firm. She decided to tell her colleagues, but she didn’t get the response she had hoped for.

“The first time I went to a local team meeting, they were asking, ‘How are you going to keep up with everything?’ ” she says. “I was so shocked that they were questioning me, saying, ‘You must be sick.’ They just didn’t get it. They thought that this would derail me.”

Nelson took time off while she underwent treatment. Three months after she returned, her position, along with another, was eliminated.

She found out later that some team members had expressed their concerns over her ability to do her job to company leaders. “I’ll never know for sure if that’s why my position was eliminated, but I’ll always wonder about it.”

While discrimination against cancer survivors has not disappeared completely, companies have come a long way since the days when sharing a cancer diagnosis sometimes meant the end of a career, says Barbara Hoffman, a law professor and founding chair of the National Coalition of Cancer Survivorship. “Back in the 1960s and ’70s, cancer was still a private thing—there was a shame factor associated with it.”

Before the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed in 1990, discrimination against cancer survivors was common.

“We’ve moved away from the taboo of having cancer toward almost a pride about being a survivor,” Hoffman says. “I think we’re getting to the place where employers look at cancer survivors and see an individual rather than a label.”

Rita Pyrillis is Workforce’s senior writer. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Pyrillis on Twitter at @RitaPyrillis.

Posted on

Working in Candy Land

Given the dismal state of today’s daily newspapers, there are still two things you can count on anytime you give one a read.

Whether you are in Bend, Bugtussle or Boston, you’re destined to find a Family Circus comic and at least one advice column offering common-sense solutions to every personal malady known to mankind. Some years ago singer-songwriter John Prine’s tune Dear Abby captured our constant kvetching in his classic ode to the now-departed advice columnist:

So listen up buster, and listen up good/

Stop wishin’ for bad luck and knockin’ on wood/

Signed, Dear Abby.

While reading the paper before a recent flight, I came across one such workplace dilemma. Amy Dickinson was asked to solve ‘Candy Bowl Sparks Bitter Office Spat’ in her Ask Amy column. Because I had 15 minutes before my plane boarded but mostly because chocolate and I are lifelong chums, I was curious to read Amy’s remedy for this confectionary controversy.

A husband wrote on behalf of his wife whose co-worker insists on keeping a bowl of chocolates in a common area. The candy proved to be too great a temptation for the woman, and, according to the writer, “has proven detrimental to her ability to keep away excess pounds.” It was signed “PO’d Husband.” Translation: PO’d Husband’s better half can’t keep her hands off the M&M’s and is getting fat.

Mrs. PO’d Husband initially asked the co-worker to put out healthier snacks to no avail. She then went to management with no better result. When that failed, she resorted to a comrades-please-join-me-in-this-battle-of-the-bulge plea that led to a big internecine sugar spat but no retreat by the keeper of the candy bowl.

To which Ask Amy told him to tell his wife that life isn’t like a box of chocolates. In essence …

So listen up buster, and listen up good/

Stop wishin’ for bad luck and tell your wife to practice some self-control.

Normally I side with our wizened newspaper advisers, oh, like every time. But in this case, when it comes down to self-discipline vs. a bowl of chocolates in the office … I must ask Amy to reconsider.

Publicly displayed bowls of sweets may be filled with the best of intentions, but it can take a vat full of self-restraint to keep from eating that second, third or even fourth peanut butter cup. I’ve worked in several offices where I had no choice but to walk past a common counter loaded with treats and snacks. Broccoli and hummus? Nope; we’re talking Chips Ahoy and Hershey’s Kisses. A bag of Oreos was a standing invitation to twist open a cookie and lap up that layer of white filling.

There are days when I am no match for a box of doughnuts slathered in an icy glaze. And if PO’d Husband is correct, I am not alone in facing this daily sugar rush of emotions.

Behavioral economics teaches us that the rationality of workers—in this case, a submissive, hypersweetened workforce—has its limits. We may expect workers to walk past free candy, but that’s not always the case. Consider too that diabetes is at epidemic proportions, and employees are so sedentary that they set their phones to remind them to move around.

A plate of apples and oranges next to the candy dish offers a choice, but it won’t solve the chocolate-covered conundrum facing me and Mrs. PO’d Husband. We can’t—and shouldn’t—scrub our workplaces free of all temptations, as Ask Amy puts it. Self-control in this instance indeed is a virtue.

Barring workers—and bosses—who like to treat their colleagues with sweets can sour morale. But reasonable boundaries on goodies at work could be needed. If too many treats are an issue, consider opening the sweets spigot wide during holidays—like Valentine’s Day—and then dial it down to a slow drip the rest of the year.

So to Amy and Abby, your advice is well-taken. But may I suggest a twist on your counsel:

Listen up you columnists, and listen up good/

We’d be more disciplined if only we could.

Rick Bell is Workforce’s managing editor. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Posted on

A Poor Dating Policy Could Break a Company’s Heart—and Wallet

Matthew Ciccone recalls a budding romance between two co-workers several years ago at a New York financial company despite its policy against such relationships.

A year into the relationship, says Ciccone, a Wall Street financial analyst, the company’s management determined it had become an issue. Instead of letting the dispute play out, one employee quit to pursue her MBA, while the other continued working for the company. And, Ciccone says, the two employees later got married and now have children.

A CareerBuilder.com survey reveals marriage is a common outcome for dating co-workers as 31 percent of office romances end up in matrimony. Still, if nearly a third of all romances started in the workplace result in marriage, it also means two-thirds end in a breakup.

An office fling can pose a risk to an employer, as it could open the door to possible sexual harassment or discrimination lawsuits, says Steven Loewengart, a regional managing partner at Columbus, Ohio-based law firm Fisher& Phillips.

Loewengart says companies should be realistic when it comes to employees dating. Office romances are “bad for business, generally, but they are inevitable. Companies that try to ban it may not find the workforce that they want. It’s a necessary evil.”

A Workplace Options survey published last year reinforces Loewengart’s belief that companies should be realistic when it comes to their dating policies: 84 percent of millennials said they wouldn’t have a problem with dating a co-worker. What’s more, the study also demonstrates how employee attitudes about dating co-workers are changing, as 36 percent of Generation X workers think dating a co-worker is acceptable.

Considering the potential risks when employees date, Susan Heathfield, a management consultant and the writer of the human resources page at About.com, says she has been lucky to have avoided any major romantic relationship issues with her employees. Her thoughts on office dating have changed, she says. She now believes it’s acceptable for most employees to date. “Have a romance. If it impacts the workplace or your performance” disciplinary action will be taken, she said while speaking about her own employees.

Heathfield says a dating policy is mostly necessary because of “outliers,” the minority of employees who may not be able to handle acting professionally around their significant other while at work.

Workplace romances make sense, according to Heathfield, who cites more women being in the workplace than in years past, a more “modernized” workplace with relaxed company expectations of employee fraternization and longer working hours for reasons why office romances are almost inevitable for some companies. Co-workers often live near or within driving distance of each other, and they already share a major common interest: the company they work for, she says. “Where else do people meet now? At work. It’s better than meeting somebody random at a bar.”

The most effective way for a company to protect itself from the risks of office romances is to have a clear sexual harassment policy, Loewengart says. Companies should also be especially careful if they allow romantic relationships between managers and subordinates, he says.

In such a situation, even if both parties are acting professionally in the workplace, a third party could argue there is favoritism. Loewengart says that perceived favoritism could potentially lead to a sexual discrimination lawsuit. If an employee of the same sex as a subordinate dating a manager thinks his or her career is being impeded by the relationship, that person could claim sexual discrimination against the employer, Loewengart says.

Heathfield argues that the best way to avoid perceived favoritism is to have a dating policy that forbids managers from dating subordinates all together because she sees “too much potential for problems” with that kind of relationship. Even if favoritism isn’t taking place, other employees will still be looking for it, which can have a negative effect on morale and productivity, she says.

According to CareerBuilder’s survey, 38 percent of workers have dated a co-worker at least once in their career. And in the same survey, which was published in 2012, 37 percent of respondents said they had to keep their relationships secret.

Instead of forbidding employees from dating, Loewengart recommends employers discourage, though not necessarily ban, subordinates dating superiors. If such a thing is to happen, he says, both employees should have to go through counseling sessions and sign a document that states both parties have read and agree with their company’s sexual harassment policies. However, disclosure agreements like this don’t eliminate the threat of a lawsuit, he says. “Formal contracts can’t always shield you from a claim” because an employee can always claim they signed the document believing it was necessary in order to avoid termination.

Both experts believe that the best way for a company to protect itself is by making clear to employees its sexual harassment policies, and by establishing expectations of professionalism. If an affair begins to negatively affect an employee’s productivity or workplace behavior, the company should take disciplinary action.

Heathfield says a company should keep it simple when developing its dating policy, believing a company needs to inform dating employees to “act professionally no matter what. Be private and discreet about your relationship. I’d hate to have thousands of words for outliers and subject professional people to more rules.”

Max Mihelich is Workforce’s editorial intern. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Posted on

How Do You Fight Invisible Discrimination?

With what seemed like most of Cleveland’s western ‘burbs, I spent part of my Sunday afternoon shopping at Costco. My trip not only included the expected bulk items, but also some unexpected bigotry.

Near the samples of mozzarella and pita grilled cheese (delicious), I crossed paths with a family—a father and his two sons—of what appeared to be Arabic descent . The older of the two boys, around age 10, turned to his dad and said:

I got back at that lady who cut me off; she looked Jewish.

Needless to say, I was stunned, and decided that I couldn’t let the comment go answered. I quietly told the family that I couldn’t stop them from thinking what they want, but they should be careful when and where they express their feelings. They walked away.

In a decade or two, that boy will join the workforce. He could be one of your employees, or, worse, one your managers or supervisors. How do you root out this kind of hatred before it outs itself out in a harassment complaint or discrimination lawsuit? There is no easy answer to this difficult question. Perhaps all we can do is recognize that everyone carries baggage. Some is harmless, and some is hateful. If we foster a workplace of openness and inclusion, when that hatred exposes itself employees will understand that it belongs to a rogue and not your company, and hopefully, choose not to hold you accountable (provided you respond quickly and decisively when brought to your attention).

Written by Jon Hyman, a partner in the Labor & Employment group of Kohrman Jackson & Krantz. For more information, contact Jon at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Posted on

The Rules of Professionalism: Getting Millennial Workers Onboard

As millennials enter the workforce, some managers find themselves underwhelmed by the level of professionalism they’re seeing.

Whether a reflection of generational differences or work habits that need course correction, human resources professionals need to be on top of this issue and its implications.

Managers’ perspectives are backed up by research done by the Center for Professional Excellence at York College of Pennsylvania’s in its annual survey on the state of professionalism among entry-level employees—2013 Professionalism in the Workplace Study. The results of the most recent study indicate that levels of professionalism have declined during the past five years with about 45 percent of respondents indicating that the work ethic has gotten worse. The decline, they say is driven by a too-casual attitude toward work (86.6 percent), not being self-driven (71.5 percent) and a lack of ownership of one’s work (69.3 percent). The desired qualities that respondents believe reflect professionalism: working until a task is completed competently, interpersonal skills including civility, appropriate appearance, punctuality and regular attendance, communication skills, honesty and being focused and attentive.

Joel Gross, founder and CEO of Coalition Technologies, a Los Angeles- and Seattle-based marketing firm, says that most of his entry-level employees need to be trained about what is expected.

“It is partly their own fault, but more so the failure of their parents and the education system,” he says.

Others, such as Jason Henham, say the issue is partially related to changing expectations. Henham, managing director of Slate Consulting, a management consulting firm, says that many HR practitioners define professionalism through an outdated lens. Professionalism should no longer be defined by such measures as wearing specific attire, being at work at a specific time or leaving after a specific time.

Instead, he says, HR should focus more on communicating the results expected and allowing flexibility in achieving those results.

“It’s less about process and more about the outcome,” he says.

But, while that may be the case in certain business cultures, it may not be the case in all. In any setting, the onus is on organizations—and their HR functions—to clearly define and convey what professionalism means. They should not assume that their specific requirements are universally understood.

Aaron McDaniel, a millennial himself, and the author of The Young Professional’s Guide to the Working World and the Young Professional’s Edge blog says: “We haven’t necessarily been taught how to be successful in a working environment.” Organizations, managers and HR professionals, McDaniel says, need to lay the groundwork.

That’s what Nick Sarillo, the owner of Nick’s Pizza & Pub in Elgin, Illinois, and the author of A Slice of the Pie: How to Build a Big Little Business has done.

More than half of his employees are high school students, and he also employs many college students. He argues that the lack of professionalism among entry-level employees often has more to do with the organization than the individual.

To combat this, he recommends—and focuses on—four key areas: careful training, trust-and-track management, transparency and an emphasis on the organization’s values as they pertain to the individual employee.

“I run into a lot of executives in businesses where they have these misconceptions about the younger generation, and I disagree with them quite a bit, especially when I hear things like, ‘They don’t have a work ethic’ and ‘They don’t work hard’.”

At Nick’s Pizza & Pub, he says, they do.

Lin Grensing-Pophal is a writer based near Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Posted on

How Lean Is Too Lean?

Dear Not Enough Cooks:

There are three reliable sources of information to indicate how well employees are managing the workload.

First are behavioral indicators. Are more people taking sick leave now compared to pre-reduction? Are there more complaints, more team conflict? Is the loss of 27 employees higher than your previous turnover rate? What’s the conversation like in the break room—or do employees no longer have the opportunities to mix and chat? Are employees routinely working longer hours and weekends? Have leave applications slowed down? Have customer complaints increased?

To support these behavioral observations, your organization ideally would gather empirical data from former and/or current employees.

Second, employees who leave may be able to provide reliable information about the impact of workload.

Implement an effective exit interview process to enable the organization to understand the true causes of loss. For example, of the 27 who left last year, who did so for reasons that your organization could have influenced? If those resignation reasons relate to overwork, then conduct a cost comparison: how much does it cost to replace staff and retrain new people to full productivity, compared with how much it costs to reduce workload pressures through various means.

Reasons for resignation Number of employees affected
Overwork/long hours/poor work-life balance: eight people
Adverse manager practices or behavior: four people
Low pay: four people
Lack of challenge and development: four people
Conflict with team: three people
Prefer fulltime parenthood: two people
Return to study: one person
Overseas travel: one person

To replace eight employees with an average salary of $60,000 (using a conservative 30 percent of salary as replacement cost) would equal $144,000. Some of that money should be reallocated to reduce the workload of remaining employees: For example, by hiring additional staff, adding new skills or improving your processes.

The third source of reliable information comes from current employees.

Only if your organization is prepared to address issues of overwork should you then ask employees about their experiences in your workplace.

Conduct a survey with a sample of staff and explore the things your people consider great (and not so great) about your company—and how these people would change things if they could.

Employees will identify means of reducing workload, other than just employing more people. Workflow improvements, removing red tape, skills improvements: A range of simple solutions can emerge when you ask people for suggestions on improving their life at work.

If workload pressures cause an adverse reaction, then it is sound strategy to reduce turnover risks by gathering information directly from employees, who should be your most prized asset.

SOURCE: Lisa Halloran, Retention Partners, Sydney, Australia

LEARN MORE: Flexible scheduling and a commitment to work/life balance can help boost retention of key contributors.

The information contained in this article is intended to provide useful information on the topic covered, but should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Also remember that state laws may differ from the federal law.

Posted on

Survey Shows Lack of Innovation Motivation

Despite the fact that company executives call innovation one of their highest priorities, cultivating innovation is not a top goal when it comes to managing the workforce, a recent survey reveals.

What’s more, 4 in 10 organizations see themselves as ineffective at fostering innovation, and there’s a mismatch between what companies are doing to promote inventiveness and what they say is effective.

These are among the findings of the 2012 Workforce Innovation Survey. The survey, which solicited information from human resources officials, HR executives and other company leaders, suggests many organizations have a ways to go when it comes to cooking up creativity.

Many observers call innovation a crucial ingredient for the 21st century economy. As product cycles spin faster, customer expectations rise and global competition ramps up. Indeed, 9 out of 10 survey respondents expect that fostering innovation will increase in importance over the next five years. But many workforce leaders in our survey are frustrated by the state of their firm’s innovation efforts. One respondent suggested a bunker mentality persists at that person’s organization in the wake of the Great Recession. “During an economic downturn, survival is 100% everyone’s focus,” the respondent wrote. “No funds or tolerance from investors or senior management to innovate and try new things even if they will ultimately generate positive revenue to the bottom line.”

Three of the other top-ranking workforce goals do contribute indirectly to innovation: leadership development, recruitment and retention. Still, the middle-of-the-road showing of promoting innovation as an explicit goal contrasts with the priorities voiced by company leaders in the CEO Challenge 2012 report published by research firm The Conference Board. In that study of global leaders, innovation ranked as the top challenge.

The U.S.-specific findings in the report also show a greater concern for innovation than is reflected in the Workforce survey, in which the majority of respondents were from U.S-based organizations. The Conference Board discovered that U.S. executives ranked innovation as the third most important challenge after government regulation and global political and economic risk.

Nearly 60 percent of respondents to our survey said their organizations were effective at fostering innovation among employees. The remaining 40 percent felt the opposite, judging their organizations’ innovation-cultivation efforts to be ineffective.

Those findings dovetail with a disconnect we discovered between what companies are doing on the innovation front and what they say works. When asked about which strategy to encourage innovation among employees is most effective, respondents ranked these approaches as the top three:

  • Facilitating more collaboration among employees.
  • Giving employees freedom to spend time developing ideas and projects.
  • Building expertise in our own domain.

But when asked about which strategies they are actually using, giving employees autonomy to pursue ideas ranked just fourth.

Why aren’t more companies applying the lessons of Google Inc. and other companies that provide employees with freedom to tinker with their own projects? One possible explanation is that workforces are stretched thin these days. “Budget constraints and downsizing have increased individual workloads, meaning that innovation is not at the forefront of priorities for most staff,” a survey respondent said. “The conundrum is that if more innovation could be implemented, staff could work smarter, not harder, but with current workloads few staff have the time to ponder or develop new ways of doing things.”

Another potential reason companies are not carving out time for independent projects is that managers may not trust that employees will use free time wisely. One survey respondent suggested that workers need guidance on the path to inventiveness. “Helping employees ‘learn’ to learn and think outside the box is a big transition for most,” the respondent wrote. “Long-term employees in particular have to have support to get to the point of being able to participate in innovation, particularly when they have not seen it in their prior years of employment.”

Perhaps another factor behind companies making less-than-ideal decisions about how to cultivate creativity is that innovation initiatives often are not measured. Just 16 percent of respondents said they have a way of quantifying the level of innovation at their organization.

Overall, the survey offers a portrait of discombobulated innovation efforts. “It’s not really structured and organized,” one respondent wrote, “So it’s more a matter of luck whether innovation takes place.”

Ed Frauenheim is Workforce’s senior editor. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Posted on

No Joke: Stand-Up Comedy Training for Employees Can Improve Workplace Culture

When Steve Cody was in the midst of a midlife crisis, he turned to performing stand-up comedy to help him shake it.

After his first time on stage, he was encouraged to continue his new-found craft by comedy coach Clayton Fletcher. And after two years of doing stand-up comedy every week, Cody, co-founder of New York-based public relations firm Peppercomm, realized his newly developed hobby was having a positive impact on his professional life.

Believing his entire organization could benefit from the communication skills required to do stand-up comedy, Cody pitched the idea of having all Peppercomm employees go through stand-up training to his senior management team. At first his idea was met with resistance, but soon Cody’s colleagues saw the potential benefits stand-up comedy training could have on their organization. And thus, Peppercomm’s Comedy Experience Program was born.

The Comedy Experience is “a workshop intended to be a management training and development program and a cultural change agent,” Cody said. The program “really comes in handy for companies that are having morale issues, departments that aren’t working together very well, or they’re in a post-merger/acquisition situation where there are two different cultures that are trying to get along.”

Peppercomm holds two to three internal Comedy Experience workshops per month, and one external event for clients per month, said Fletcher, now Peppercomm’s (and likely the world’s only) chief comedy officer. A single workshop can last a half-day or be as long as an entire day, depending on how many participants there are.

Workshops are broken up into three different segments. The first segment consists of talks from both Cody and Fletcher on the importance of comedy and how it can benefit business performance; in the second segment individual participants give their own three to four minute stand-up routines, which are taped, and in the final segment Cody and Fletcher sit down with every single participant and review their taped performance to offer constructive criticism.

Susan Heathfield, Management Consultant and the writer of the Human Resources page at About.com, views the Comedy Experience as a mostly beneficial training tool. “Anything like these kinds of activities where people become more comfortable presenting are positive. Plus, even if you don’t make presentations it can help you be more comfortable speaking up at a meeting,” she said.

The goal of the Comedy Experience, according to Cody, is to create better listeners and storytellers.

“At Peppercomm we’ve been doing [the Comedy Experience] for six or seven years and it’s really changed our culture in a positive way. We had a good culture to begin with, but now we’ve got a culture where self-deprecating humor is a way of speaking and our way of emailing to one another,” said Cody, who believes poking fun at yourself brings a certain level of humility and humanity to Peppercomm’s workplace culture.

Although that style of humor works for Peppercomm, it doesn’t work for every corporate culture, said Fletcher. “I feel like a sense of humor is like a fingerprint: no two are exactly alike. What we try to do is figure out what makes you funny, and then figure out how to use that in the workplace,” he said.

Heathfield believes the biggest disadvantage of this kind of program is the anxiety and fear employees may have in the days leading up to it, which may outweigh its benefits. “The way in which you approach this can make all the difference. I am a fan of helping people move out of their comfort zones, but you have to be really aware of the fact that something like this can really traumatize certain individuals.”

One of most important benefits of having employees go through a Comedy Experience workshop, Fletcher says, is that brings them closer together. “The group, invariably, they bond. They become like a team rooting for each other. … Because we come from a place of vulnerability and authenticity, people are encouraged to tell true stories. They end up learning things about their co-workers they may have never known.”

As a result of the strong team-building through the frequent comedy training, Peppercomm enjoys a low turnover rate, said Cody. “I think it’s because [the employees] have all been through this comedy thing and they’ve heard each other talk about their neurotic moms or their insomniac boyfriends or whatever. And it’s a different way of getting to know your cube-mate. It’s broken down all sorts of barriers for us.”

Max Mihelich is Workforce’s editorial intern. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Posted on

How Many People Fail Background Checks?

Dear Screen Test:

There are no national or official governmental statistics on the number of applicants who fail pre-employment background tests. However, various background firms maintain their own numbers. In addition, various organizations publish their annual criminal “hit rates,” showing how many applicants subject to background screening had criminal records or other discrepancies. Background firms obviously benefit by pointing out to employers the dangers and pitfalls of hiring without checking an applicant’s background.

On the one hand, these figures confirm why background checks may be critical to certain employers. Without a system of pre-employment screening, it is almost a statistical certainty that an employer will at some point hire someone who brings serious baggage and the potential to create a legal and financial nightmare.

On the other hand, as with all statistics, these reports should be carefully reviewed. For example: One common statistic notes that a large percentage of applications contain material fraud, omissions or misrepresentations. However, it is usually a judgment call to decide where to draw the line between applicants putting themselves in the best possible light, as opposed to actual fraud.

Another area that requires a closer look is criminal hits. First, not all criminal records come as a surprise to employers. Many employers are still willing to hire someone for an appropriate position, providing the applicant was not dishonest during the application process. In fact, certain industries by nature of their workforce are more likely to draw upon a pool of potential applicants who may tend to have higher levels of past criminal conduct. Examples might be construction or firms that provide employment for entry-level workers.

As a result, employers need to carefully define what they mean by “failing” a background check. For example, just because a criminal record is found does not mean the applicant hid it or failed a background check. An applicant may well have self-revealed the criminal record already and the purpose of a background check is to merely confirm what the applicant reported.

In addition, not all criminal records are so serious that it would necessarily affect job consideration. Another issue is whether the “failure to pass” is, in fact, a failure. For example, a person may have been a victim of identity theft—thus, even though a crime is committed in the person’s name, the person in fact did not have a criminal conviction.

The rate of failing background checks may also depend upon the industry as well. Certain industries may have a higher rate of “hits” on criminal searches than others, by virtue of the nature of the job, the pay scale and the available population to fill the job. If you are experiencing a 97 percent pass rate and suspect it is too good to be true, consider these possibilities:

  • You could be utilizing a number of best practices that tend to discourage applicants with something to hide, such as a very well-thought-out pre-hiring process that eliminates potential applicants with problems. Employers who utilize certain best practices, such as a careful application review, good interview techniques and calling past employers, often find that they encounter fewer problems when performing background checks.
  • Second, the particular workforce may statistically be less likely to encounter problems. For example, a biotech firm hiring those with doctorates may well find that it has a lower rate of criminal hits compared with a firm that hires a more general workforce.
  • Third, you may need to examine if the screening process is effective at obtaining the necessary information and that you are not receiving “false negatives” (i.e., applicants with criminal records being reported as clear). If that is a concern, the best approach is to reinvestigate a random sample of applicants with another firm. As in any outsourced HR service, it can be useful to occasionally audit the efficiency of a service provider.

It is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the statistics without knowing the search methodology. Depending on how the searches were conducted, it is possible in fact that such annual statistics may even understate the number of criminal records applicants had. The most accurate criminal-record searches are done by accessing information directly from the county courthouse level, either by going to the court, or by use of the court computer system that is the functional equivalent of going to the courthouse. Databases on the other hand, although much wider in scope, are not nearly as accurate, do not have all courts or jurisdictions, may not be up to date or may contain insufficient identifiers. To the extent any searching was done by the use of databases, the numbers could potentially be understated.

The bottom line: Statistics on criminal “hits” and failed background checks are an excellent reminder that employers need to be careful in hiring. However, as with most statistics, there is more to the story.

SOURCE: Les Rosen, Employment Screening Resources, Novato, California

LEARN MORE: Employers are conducting fewer credit and criminal background checks on prospective employees now compared with two years ago, according to a survey by the Society for Human Resource Management.

The information contained in this article is intended to provide useful information on the topic covered, but should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Also remember that state laws may differ from the federal law.

Posted on

EEOC Settles Seventh Day Adventist Religious Discrimination Suit

A Birmingham, Alabama-based manufacturing company has agreed to pay $25,000 to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for allegedly refusing to hire a Seventh Day Adventist, the agency said.

The EEOC said late last month that when James Wright applied for employment with Altec Industries Inc.’s Burnsville, North Carolina, manufacturing facility, he said that as a Seventh Day Adventist, he could not work on his Sabbath, which runs from sundown Friday until sundown Saturday. The EEOC charged in its complaint that Altec decided not to hire him as a result, which it said violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In addition to paying the $25,000, under terms of the settlement, Altec also agreed to provide annual training on religious discrimination to all of its managers and supervisors at its Burnsville facility, among other actions.

Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte, North Carolina, district office said in a statement: “An employer cannot refuse to hire an applicant to avoid making a religious accommodation.

“Where there is a conflict between a religious belief and work rules, the law mandates that employers make a sincere effort to accommodate those beliefs, including at the application stage. We are pleased that the settlement with Altec provides injunctive relief that will benefit all the company’s employees and future applicants.”

A spokesman for Altec, which provides products and services to the electric utility, telecommunications and contractor markets, could not immediately be reached for comment.

Experts say religious discrimination claims in the workplace are expected to be a growing problem for employers.

Judy Greenwald writes for Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.