Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Workplace Culture

Posted on January 20, 2020June 29, 2023

Opening Up the Workplace Medicine Cabinet

workplace medicine cabinet, substance use and alcohol consumption at work
workplace medicine cabinet
Illustrations by Christina Chung

The phrase “drugs in the workplace” understandably elicits an alarmed reaction from employers. But the truth is the amount of substances that are considered drugs are many and varied, and many are commonplace for an employee’s daily routine.

Substance use abounds in the workplace — and that’s just legal substances. Employees roll into work and can’t get anything done without their daily dose of caffeine. Colleagues meet in the break room with cases of beer to partake in the regular happy hour. Someone anxious about an upcoming deadline picks up a CBD-infused coffee at breakfast or a CBD-infused burger for lunch. And don’t forget about that roll of antacids or bottle of ibuprofen in the desk drawer or an energy drink in the fridge for a mid-afternoon pick-me-up.

In short, regulating substance use among employees is not simple and straightforward. Drugs like caffeine and alcohol are legal, but employers may get into trouble if an employee’s alcohol consumption leads them to cause problems during the employee get-together.

Cannabis is still illegal federally in the United States as more states legalize it for medical and recreational purposes, causing confusion for employers who can’t keep compliance straight among the constant changes. And, a recent surge of “smart drugs” — substances taken to improve creativity, attention, executive function and working memory — poses major ethical questions about whether it’s OK to take a mental steroid to be productive at work.

PRODUCTIVITY

Much has been made about college students taking medication to stay productive and awake, but that habit doesn’t end at graduation.

People use cognitive enhancing drugs — also referred to as “smart drugs” — to improve their creativity, attention, executive function and memory. Much like athletes may use performance-enhancing drugs to improve speed and endurance, employees may use smart drugs to be productive at work.

“Some people start using them in college and then they’re carrying that habit with them into the workforce. And things don’t get easier when you go from college to the workforce,” said Nick Heudecker, vice president of research-data & analytics at Gartner.

The use of smart drugs isn’t limited to an industry or economic status, Heudecker said. Even though Silicon Valley workers taking microdoses of lysergic acid diethylamide — more commonly known as the hallucinogenic LSD — to stay focused has received media attention, knowledge workers aren’t the only ones taking part. “Every workforce population is engaging in cognitive enhancement in some way,” Heudecker said.

ADHD drug Adderall is by far the most common smart drug, he said, followed by Ritalin, or methylphenidate. Modafinil, a narcolepsy drug, is another common cognitive enhancer. Energy drinks and caffeine — common parts of many people’s daily routines — are also considered smart drugs, according to Heudecker. And the over-the-counter dietary supplements called nootropics claim to improve people’s cognitive abilities, as well. Nootropics alone, according to Grand View Research, Inc., is a $2.17 billion market as of 2018 and expected to be a $4.94 billion market by 2025. Meanwhile, microdosing LSD means that the user takes about 1/10th of a dose as a way to “break down cognitive barriers and help them be more creative,” Heudecker said, adding there is no research on how microdosing LSD impacts users’ health.

The nickname “smart drug” is a misnomer. “These drugs don’t make you smarter. They allow you to better use the facilities you already have,” Heudecker said. They do so by helping people stay more focused or awake. Users may have that “feeling of being in the zone” for longer. 

The use of these substances “is becoming more prevalent, not less,” he said, adding that too few employers are thinking practically about how they will address smart drug use in their workforce.

Why People Take Them: In 2018, The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, or EU-OSHA, released the report “Managing Performance Enhancing Drugs in the Workplace: An Occupational Safety and Health Perspective” to explore the trend of smart drug use among workers.

Employees take them for “increased monitoring of employee health, stress levels, alertness and fitness,” especially when these measures are used to judge an employees’ ability to do their jobs. “It is possible to anticipate that employees under this level of scrutiny may turn to various pharmacological means to allow some control over biometric readings,” the report noted.

drugs in the workplaceWorkers in low-paid jobs that are not protected under standard labor laws may feel increased pressure to hit certain productivity levels, especially since they are increasingly being monitored by their employers. Not wanting to lose a job they rely on, they may turn to smart drugs. “Electronic means of monitoring employees are likely to be accompanied by an increase in the stresses on workers,” the article noted.

Employers in general don’t seem aware that this trend is happening, Heudecker said. “It’s not like someone goes out for lunch, has a few martinis, and their speech is slurred. It looks like, ‘I’ve got a really productive worker.’ You’re not going to ask questions because it’s a positive outcome,” he said.

While employers may appreciate that their employees are being more productive, if employees must turn to drugs to reach those performance goals, then the employer should consider how the company culture or policy drove them there, Heudecker said.

“There’s a lot of demand to always be on, so you need to give your employees permission to be off,” he said. His 2017 Gartner report “Cognitive Enhancement Drugs Are Changing Your Business” also explored the main reasons that push employees to take these substances. Basically, employees either view smart drugs as an opportunity to push the boundaries of what they can accomplish in the workplace or feel coerced into taking them to maintain performance and keep up with their workload.

If employees feel forced, that has the potential to get employers in trouble. “This may expose organizations to legal risk if CED users obtain drugs illegally because they felt forced by colleagues or management,” the report noted. 

Employer Response: Brian McPherson, labor and employment attorney at Florida-based law firm Gunster, has never had an employer raise the issue of smart drugs.

Medical cannabis is legal in Florida and that’s received all the attention, he said. “[Employers don’t have] the time or capacity to focus on the other issue that is brewing somewhat underneath.”

Studies support the increased use of Adderall, Ritalin and other drugs for performance, he said. Still, most employers try to stay away from getting involved in the prescription drugs employees are taking, and they assume they are complying with their physicians’ directions.

“We know it’s happening on a grand scale, at least more than it has in the past, but employers aren’t really talking about or dealing with it,” McPherson said.

Heudecker suggested policies companies can adopt to directly address smart drugs. A chief human resources officer can work with other leaders to draft a policy around cognitive enhancer use in the workforce. They also can support “non-pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement” — practices that naturally help people be more productive by “improving work-life balance, adjusting work schedules, promoting physical activity and educating employees on healthy nutrition and sleep practices,” Heudecker said.

An employer’s response also has to respect the fact that many smart drugs are prescription drugs that people need. “You don’t want to alienate people who need something for their ADHD,” Heudecker said.

THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE

The substance that employers mostly ask about is cannabis, said McPherson. Since medical cannabis is legal in the Florida, McPherson has fielded many questions about its use.

All indications point to cannabis laws continuing to progress in more states, he said. Once states approve it for medicinal purposes, the “floodgate starts to open” and there is a “general march toward recreational use.” Currently, 33 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have passed laws broadly legalizing marijuana in some form. As of Jan. 1, 2020, 11 states — Alaska, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington — and the District of Columbia have adopted laws legalizing marijuana for recreational use.

“As long as marijuana remains illegal under federal law, employers are getting a comfort level that they can still enforce the drug-free workplace tests for marijuana,” he said. “If it ever becomes legal under federal law, that will really change the landscape, and it will become a much more complex situation.”

Drug use among many U.S. sectors is growing, according to the Quest Diagnostics 2019 “Drug Testing Index.” The data involved in this analysis come from pre-employment testing for safety-sensitive positions or drug-free workplaces, said Barry Sample, senior director of science and technology at Quest Diagnostics, which has been annually analyzing workplace drug testing data since 1988.

Cannabis is the most commonly detected drug in the workplace, according to the “Drug Testing Index.” Positive tests have increased in most sectors. Meanwhile, positive test rates have declined for cocaine, heroin and opiates.

Interestingly, the inclusion of cannabis in testing panels may vary by state, the index showed. In almost all states, 95 percent of organizations still test for it when they have the option. Colorado and Washington, the states where recreational use has been legal for the longest time, saw a 4 percent decrease in organizations testing for cannabis between 2015 and 2018.

There may be differences by industry, Sample added. “Where there are generally less skilled workers, employers are having difficulties finding employees that will pass all the background screening, including drug testing,” he said. “They may be making a risk-based judgment on their part that ‘We’re going to take the chance and ignore the use of marijuana, because we really need people on board.’ ”

Meanwhile, two organizations have announced more nuanced drug tests for cannabis that may hit the market in 2020, according to Business Insurance. A research team at the Swanson School of Engineering at the University of Pittsburgh has developed a breathalyzer prototype, and Oakland, California-based Hounds Labs Inc. plans on bringing a breathalyzer to market in 2020.

Such tools could help detect marijuana use, which can stay in a person’s system up to 30 days after consumption, McPherson said. “The employers I’ve talked to about these tests are excited and hopeful about them,” he said.

Dan Harrah, senior associate at Mercer and a consultant specializing in behavioral health and health care operations, is skeptical about these tests. “The science of impairment is not settled yet. There’s a lot of subjectivity,” he said.

There will need to be a way to review these tests and see how effective they actually are, he added.

Psychedelic Legislation: While laws regarding cannabis use is moving rapidly, legislation on psychedelics is slower, said McPherson. Two cities — Oakland and Denver — have decriminalized psychedelics such as magic mushrooms, and the Chicago City Council in October 2019 approved a resolution that experts say could pave the way to decriminalizing them. The resolution uses the term “entheogenic substances,” defined as any range of natural plants or fungi “that can inspire personal and spiritual well-being,” as well as other psychological and physical benefits.

“The most alert employers are watching what’s going on with the psychedelics and they are concerned,” McPherson said.

Regardless of the substance, he advises employers to stay informed.

ADDICTION

A person with an addiction is hyper-focused on obtaining their drug of choice and getting that high, which can affect their hygiene, sleep, basic social behaviors and work performance, said Andrea Elkon, clinical psychologist and director of behavioral health for Alliance Spine and Pain Centers. This hyper-focus applies to substances such as nicotine, alcohol or opioids as well as behaviors like gambling or shopping.

An employee struggling with a serious substance addiction is fairly obvious to spot, Elkon said. They may consistently come in late, leave early or not show up to work at all, take extended lunch breaks or exhibit erratic behavior such as falling asleep at their desk or acting more emotional than usual.

In such cases, managers need to be assertive, Elkon said. It may be an uncomfortable subject, but not enough people know how to handle it, she said. Managers should learn how to take action — sooner rather than later — while still showing concern toward the addicted employee.

When an employee does not yet have a serious addiction but is on the path toward one, managers can still notice behavior patterns like absenteeism that may point to a substance problem. “That is a way to address the early signs, to focus specifically on the behaviors that are disruptive to the workplace,” Elkon said.

Also read: Boozy Workplaces Aren’t Just Trendy. They’re Potentially Dangerous

Employer Communication: Many employers have benefits programs in place to address addiction but not an environment that allows for open conversations about substance use, Harrah said.

“When it comes to behavioral health, everybody is able to talk about [how they] didn’t sleep well last night, and there’s no stigma around that. But nobody says, ‘I’m really thinking about cutting down on my drinking.’ There’s more stigma around that statement.” he said.

More employers have been taking on behavioral stigma, but there’s still work to be done. And the lack of communication around substance use benefits can lead employees down the wrong road, Harrah said. For example, if someone with an addiction realizes they need help, oftentimes the first thing they do is Google treatments. While the employer plan may include in-network carriers with good programs for addiction, a simple internet search can lead to low quality, out-of-network care, he said.

“One of the things that I caution my clients on is you can have these supportive conversations, but you better understand what programs are in place. Because once you start having those conversations, your employees start to come to you, whether for themselves or a family member,” Harrah said.

Substance abuse and mental health benefits also belong in open enrollment conversations, said Morgan Young, vice president of client services, employee benefits at insurance brokerage Holmes Murphy. Young didn’t mention mental health and substance abuse benefits in a recent open enrollment meeting, and an employee later asked if the company covered mental health benefits. Young was reminded of how important it is to share that message to employees.

Substance abuse benefits should go beyond the employee assistance program, she added. Employers consistently see low utilization of EAPs and try to convince employees to use them more, but they’re not going to be the only solution, she said.

“We need to understand that while an EAP may be a good tool for some, it’s not going to dissolve all the needs we have. We need to come up with different tools, resources and policies and make them available to employees,” she said.

Elkon suggested resources that could help employees or dependents with addictions. One of the first steps is sending them for a substance abuse risk evaluation, she said. These evaluations can tell employers about the employee’s risk of substance abuse problems and treatment options.

If an employee does have a problem, employers can respond by showing concern and having treatment resources available, Elkon said. The employee could use a leave of absence to get the necessary treatment, with the assurance that they won’t lose their job while they’re getting treatment.

“If someone is showing any signs of addiction, it’s important to show concern but be firm with that person sooner rather than later because it could spiral and affect other co-workers.” she said.

Posted on January 8, 2020January 26, 2021

A Notorious Workplace Warning About Employee Engagement

engaged at work, employee engagement

I’ve been hitting up a neighborhood eatery for several years now.

It’s adorned with funky artwork, airs an eclectic soundtrack and offers a menu featuring everything from a burger slathered in peanut butter to a tasty rotation of hand-made sausages. One week it might be venison, the next chorizo.

No matter the encased meat of the week, the Notorious D.O.G. is my go-to item.

I always feel comfortable stopping in. Not in a “Cheers” way where Norm and Cliff anchor one end of the bar and Frasier Crane holds down the other end and everybody knows my name, but instead for its casual neighborhood vibe.

As good as the food, drink and atmosphere are, what I’ve particularly appreciated is the staff camaraderie. It’s a talented young team that with few exceptions has worked together since my initial visit. I’ve often mused that it must be hard to crack this employee roster since the faces have been familiar for so long.

I even wondered whether there was profit sharing or an employee stock ownership plan to retain the team. In an industry where turnover is regularly 60 percent-plus, they were an employee-retention oddity.

Ultimately I concluded that this team just enjoys working together. So I wasn’t all that surprised to find out that they’re cool with sharing the wealth by pooling their tips.

What a novel concept that in our “Eff you, I got mine” working world, a group of 15 or 20 people pulling for one another’s success allowed them to share the work and reap the rewards.

It was not unusual to see one of them serving one night, hosting the next and behind the bar on another visit. As a collective they have each others’ backs.

If one server has a table that requires a lot of attention, another server or busser covers for their colleague by doing the little things — refilling water glasses or taking an appetizer order even though it is not their table. The team attitude provides amazing customer service, solves problems on the fly and perhaps most importantly keeps the locals eager to return.

About six months ago, though, I noticed a change at the restaurant. Some of the funky artwork disappeared.

The music went from eclectic to predictable. The weekly Notorious D.O.G. rotation went static. And most notably familiar faces were gone.

I discovered that my favorite little eatery had changed ownership.

I get it. Change happens. For those of us who take comfort in the familiar, we need to adapt. That, or find another restaurant that serves tasty, encased meat.

Over the next couple of visits it was clear that other changes were underway. New staff members were inexperienced, which is understandable, but they also seemed indifferent to the legacy of customer service that built up over the years.

Since the staff was still pooling tips, it presented the risk of a breakdown in trust between engaged longtime servers and indifferent new people manifesting itself in an atmosphere of apathy. The delicate dance of having each others’ backs, which had served employees so well, threatened to descend into a clumsy series of missteps that frustrated all staff members and irritated patrons accustomed to a high level of service.

Building a cohesive staff is a challenge all managers face. Engaging and retaining them truly tests that person’s ability to manage people but also speaks volumes for employees’ willingness to set aside their own interests for the good of the organization.

Even in the best of economic times a mere one-third of employees say they are engaged in their work.

That means you have a whole lot of your workforce who at best are indifferent about their work and a big portion of them who couldn’t give a rat’s tail about you, the company’s goals or mission statement.

What can you do? You can gamble on an exodus and hope to rebuild what likely has become a demoralized staff or worse, an ugly, toxic mess.

Or, realize and appreciate the current camaraderie and learn the nuances of what sustains it through employee engagement.

Sure you are going to make changes. It’s your shop now. But too many bosses make change just for change’s sake. Can I toss out a cliché? Why fix what isn’t broken?

Sadly, I still don’t feel that old level of comfort. I’m probably not the lone patron who noticed a swing in the employee engagement.

Swapping out wall hangings, reprogramming music and curbing the fare might be one thing. But a slippage in service is noticeable, and it’s also notoriously bad for business.

Posted on January 6, 2020June 29, 2023

Q&A With Jennifer Petriglieri: The Key to Thriving in Love and in Work

workplace couples
Jennifer Petriglieri
Jennifer Petriglieri, author of “Couples That Work.”

Jennifer Petriglieri, author of “Couples That Work,” talked to Workforce about the reality of making a dual-career relationship thrive in both the professional and personal aspect. In her book, she examines three transitions that couples commonly go through, the challenges they face and how to navigate each of these stages of their relationship. She recently spoke with Workforce Editorial Associate Yasmeen Qahwash.

Workforce: Struggling with work-life balance isn’t necessarily a new challenge for couples, so what motivated you to write this book now?

Jennifer Petriglieri: It’s true, couples have been struggling with work-life balance, but the way we’ve looked at work-life balance is really the interface between each individual’s career and their home life. We’ve never looked at how two careers interact together, and certainly, my research in many ways came from my personal experience. I’m in a working couple myself, and facing career transitions, and as every good academic does, when I face a problem, I go to the library. I was looking for research books, anything that could help me really understand how careers fit together, and all I found was the work-life balance literature, which is how do we divide the laundry and manage child care? All these stories of power couples, they seemed to have everything sorted, neither of which were really helpful. The more I looked, the more I realized there’s just nothing out there that looks at the interaction of two people’s careers over their lifetime. So, I thought, if that’s not there, I’m going to write that.

Workforce: What was the methodology for this research?

Petriglieri: Over the course of five years, I followed more than 100 couples across the globe and really tried to understand their lives as they unfolded. These couples were in different career and life stages, so, all the way from late 20s, 30s, 40s, right through to 60s, and even some in their 70s. They were from across the globe, gay, straight, intercultural, some had always lived in the same place, some had moved around — it’s a huge variety. When I started the research, the questions I had were, “What is the arrangement that makes this work? Is there a life structure that if people pursue, they get it right? Is it 50/50 or maybe one person with the lead career? Or maybe we should really stay in one place and not move around?”

Watch the video: Dual-Career Couples and the Balancing Act Between Work and Life

As I got into my research, initially, it was quite confusing. There were couples with all sorts of arrangements that could make it work, and there were couples with exactly the same arrangements who weren’t making it work. That’s when I started to realize, it’s not actually what a couple choose to do, it’s the way in which they go about making their choices, and that really unlocked the findings of the data.

Workforce: How are workplaces accommodating to these couples’ needs and lifestyles, and what are they neglecting?

Couples That WorkPetriglieri: The bottom line is, organizations have a D-minus right now when it comes to thinking through working couples. This really stems from the logic we currently have in our organizations around talent management. When we think and talk about talent, we treat them as people with no strings attached. Now, we may say we recognize you have a personal life outside, but that is not the way almost all our talent management structures and processes are designed in organizations. This creates two main issues for working couples, one is a mobility issue and one is a flexibility issue. The mobility issue is that most career ladders are based on the logic of geographic moves. If you want to get to the top of this organization, you need experience in different geographic markets, perhaps you need experience on different sites of the business. This logic of geographic muse is really baked into the heart of our talent management processes. Now, it’s not that working couples are not mobile, that’s not what I found at all. However, they cannot be mobile in the same way that someone with a stay-at-home spouse can be or someone who is single. This is creating big issues for working couples, but also big issues in organizations. The few organizations who are really thinking this through well now are changing the logic from location to a logic of what skills they experience in the network that people need to develop.

The second issue is flexibility. The problem is that most companies are really looking at this in the wrong way. Most people, when you say flexible working, the image that comes in their mind is of a working mother with small children, and they think part-time working or two days a week at home working. The reality is for the vast majority of working couples, that is not the flexibility they want nor is it the flexibility they need, what they need is what I call marginal flexibility. They don’t actually want to work less hours, they just want the flexibility to work those hours when and where suits them best.

Workforce: Communication seems to be a key factor in navigating couples through their transition stages. Why is this so hard for couples to maintain?

Petriglieri: I think there’s one societal reason, and then one reason within couples. I think as a society, if we think about our careers, we have a logic of investment. We wouldn’t think twice to spend a weekend on a retreat thinking about career direction and career strategizing. And we think about careers in terms of investing effort to figure out where we want to go and what’s important in pursuing it. When we think about relationships, we have the Prince Charming logic — I meet the one, I kiss the frog and we live happily ever after. We may laugh at that, and we know in our heart of hearts it’s completely unrealistic. Yet time and time again, as a society, we think about having these deep conversations as something that should be done when we have an issue in our relationship. We don’t think about relationships through the logic of investing in them. If you ask someone, “What’s your vision for your relationship?” they probably look at you with a blank face, and I’ve done it many times, I can attest to that. But if you ask someone, “What’s the vision for your career?” they could likely tell you something. I think what this does is it puts couples in the mindset of the fairy tale of their relationship, that if something becomes challenging, maybe that’s a problem with our relationship, maybe we’re not meant to be together. No, it’s just about investment — it’s exactly the same view as your careers. The more you invest, the more you get out. This is true in every domain of life, but in our relationships, we tend to, as a society, have left that behind and really forgotten about that. Then for couples, if we’ve not been doing that investment, when we hit that first roadblock, we are like rabbits in the headlights. We think, “Whoa, what’s happening? Is this a problem with our relationship? Maybe we shouldn’t have gone down this path together.” Rather than thinking, “OK, this is the time we need to double down and invest in those conversations.” To be fair, many couples get to those conversations through a crisis point, and that’s OK to get there. The question is once you get there can you then use that insight to develop a habit of keeping working on that stuff together? The reason I use the term investment is because these can be difficult conversations, but they’re also incredibly rewarding conversations. Who doesn’t want to spend time thinking about what really matters to them? Who doesn’t want to spend time with the person they love most in the world? Thinking about, “Where do we want to go in life, what are the things that are important to us?” So, it’s not that these conversations are really painful to have all the time, it’s just that we’re not used to having them. One of my real ambitions for the book, is it changes the way we talk about our relationships, it changes the way we think about working couples and it changes the conversations we have with our partners, but also we have with each other, we have in our organizations, and we have as a society about what it takes to make a relationship and two careers work.

Posted on December 22, 2019June 29, 2023

The Decade in Diversity and Inclusion: How Much Progress Did We Make?

diversity

From a diversity and inclusion perspective, this has been a tumultuous decade. There has clearly been an increase in conversation about moving the dial on D&I, but how much has really changed?

It’s easy to feel discouraged when women make up only 17 percent of executives in consulting, 15 percent in financial services, and 11 percent in tech. However, increased advocacy, laws and pressure addressing this problem has begun to make changes. The proportion of women on boards of the FTSE 100 has increased from 12.5 percent in 2010 to 32.4 percent in 2019.

But the numbers don’t tell the whole story. The biggest areas where things have changed are our understanding of bias and discrimination and the way people are thinking about D&I.

Ten years ago, the words “unconscious bias” were only heard in academic circles. Now, they are common parlance. The term “psychological safety” was only used in academic journals in 2010, but now C-suite executives discuss its importance. These examples show an incredible increase in our understanding of why inclusion problems persist in the workplace.

Perhaps the biggest change comes from the very reasons organizations are doing D&I work in the first place. A decade ago, most organizations were approaching D&I from a compliance-driven approach that focused on ensuring the company was meeting all requirements it was legally obligated to. This “Diversity 101” approach was about attaining a minimum, not adding value.

As social consciousness around D&I increased, many organizations moved to a “Diversity 2.0” approach. They recognized that consumer markets look very different than they might have even 10 years ago and that consumers want to respect the values of the organizations they buy from. Putting diversity at the center of a major ad campaign is a good signal to these diverse populations that businesses understand these needs.

But as we close out the decade, some organizations have realized when these ad campaigns are not backed up by concrete action, it can create a feeling of inauthenticity. This can make the dominant group feel good about themselves but make the minority group they are trying to attract even more cynical. That gap in marketing versus reality is stark, and people notice. It causes a credibility gap that can make things worse in the eyes of the public.

As a result, businesses have found real success by using the “Inclusion 3.0” approach. This is where diversity and inclusion initiatives are not something done on the side, but rather are a key aspect of the way they do business.

Inclusive thinking is embedded in all the decisions they make, creating the conditions for a more organic increase in diversity in the company and a more inclusive environment that makes everyone thrive and work together more productively.

This change in perspective is also affecting new technologies. In the last decade, advances in machine learning and AI have caused some problems in the D&I space. Algorithms are created by human programmers, so everything the machine learns is imbued with their biases. One famous example is how object-detection systems in self-driving cars are better at detecting light skin than dark skin, a phenomenon discovered by Georgia Tech researchers in early 2019.

However, this technology has also become much cheaper. Thus, as we become more aware of how bias affects AI, we are more easily able to rectify its problems. In the case of self-driving cars, companies like Tesla and Uber have been able to adapt their platforms to completely change the way their cars detect objects in a short time for a relatively low cost.

Moreover, we are seeing the advent of tech products that actually help mitigate our biases. Textio is one example. It uses machine learning to help us understand what words and phrases in job descriptions are more or less biased toward applicants of different genders.

As tech becomes cheaper and easier to use, and as our awareness of our own biases and how they affect our work and technology increases, we can become increasingly innovative in how to mitigate our biases in day-to-day life. While at times it may seem that little progress has been made when we look at the numbers, in reality the change in consciousness around D&I is a much more substantive change.

We may have backlash to this progress, coming in the forms of political crises around the globe, but the conversation has clearly changed. As such, we can look to the next decade with optimism.

Posted on December 13, 2019June 29, 2023

What to Do When the CEO Is a Bully

One of the biggest challenges a person will face in their working lives is dealing with a bully, and unfortunately it happens to pretty much everyone. In the past, our parents told us that this was “character building” and something that “everyone has to go through,” but that’s rubbish.

The culture of the organization should never make excuses for the behavior of its managers

Denigrating the thoughts and actions of another human being has never been acceptable. However, some organizations have been great at finding excuses for it and in some instances even encouraging it.

According to research from the Trades Union Congress, 29 percent of people in the United Kingdom are bullied in work. Another survey from SME Loans found that the number is 1 in 4.

Having to deal with poorly behaving employees is something that every culture — even those ranked as best places to work — will deal with at some stage. Often the problem with poorly behaving staff is a result of two things: the emotional intelligence of the individual and the culture that lets the person get away with behaving that way.

Managers Aren’t Necessarily Leaders

There’s an assumption that once a person achieves a particular role within a company’s hierarchy, they are automatically a leader.

Managers are good at their jobs, but leaders do that as well as motivating people by role modeling the behaviors they expect of others. This is what the great CEOs around the world do. They run the business efficiently, make good decisions, deal with issues quickly and ensure that a safe space exists for staff to be able to do their best work.

These are the kinds of people we want running our businesses. Not only are these organizations great places to work, but they’re profitable as well.

Researchers Burton and O’Reilly found this in 2000, writing, “Behavioral theories concentrate on what a leader does rather than who a person is. However, studies show that followers tend to look first at who a leader is.”

Direct Style or Bullying?

It’s important to recognize the difference between personality and behavior. Sometimes people confuse a direct management style for bullying. But other times, the CEO sets the wrong tone and is the person bullying others.

A CEO with a direct style of management doesn’t say please or thank you, will often use language that others don’t appreciate, can be blunt in the way that they provide feedback and can often makes decisions that go against the prevailing mindset. These leaders can become more emotionally intelligent, recognize how off-putting their management style can be, and adjust their style accordingly.

Bullies, however, place unreasonable demands on staff, use threatening verbal and physical language, don’t listen, are unapproachable, actively create divisions and treat people differently based on their gender, sexuality, race or skills.

People who behave in this way have no place in business, and it’s up to the people within the culture to reject this. Steve Jobs is one such example of a bully whose staff challenged him when his behaviors got the better of him.

If you’re on the receiving end of this kind of behavior from the CEO or any member of the senior management team, then it’s important to make notes about the interaction and speak with the HR manager. Their position doesn’t mean that they get to behave differently. On the contrary, they need to set the example.

It is the job of the HR manager to ensure that every member of staff upholds the behaviors and values expected. If you’re the HR manager, then you may seek to discuss your approach with your peers and jointly speak to the CEO.

Once the conversation has taken place, then you need to confirm in writing the nature of the discussion and what needs to change. This is often outlined in a process which must be followed in case follow-up action is necessary. A second conversation on behaviors must be followed by a disciplinary hearing in order to send the message that poor behavior won’t be tolerated.

The culture of the organization should never make excuses for the behavior of its managers and should deal with issues in the same way as they would for all. If the CEO doesn’t set the behavioral tone, they should be told to do so. Otherwise, the staff will suffer and so will the bottom line.

 

 

Posted on December 11, 2019December 12, 2019

Vote Now for the Worst Employer of 2019 — Polls Are Open

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

All year long, I’ve been sharing examples of the worst employers in America. My goal? Compile them at the end of the year and then turn it over to you, my readers, to pick the worst of the worst.

Today is your opportunity to help pick the Worst Employer of 2019.

I’ve narrowed this year’s preliminary list down to my choice for the top 10 naughty employers.

Voting will take from today until December 17, at 11 p.m. You will be able to vote for up to 3 choices.

I will then tally the votes, and, announce the highest recipient as the very worthy winner of the Worst Employer of 2019.

Vote, share this post with your friends, colleagues, and social networks, and most importantly, learn something from the mistakes of these 10 very cringe-worthy nominees.

Posted on December 3, 2019June 29, 2023

The 20th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Malignant Mogul

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

The 20th (and final) nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is Alki David, heir to the Coca-Cola bottling fortune and owner of several media firms.

The evidence?

This week, a jury awarded over $58 million to a female employee who accused him of thrusting his pelvis into her face, simulating oral sex, moaning and zipping up his pants and walking away saying, “Thanks, M.K.”

It’s the third massive sexual abuse verdict leveled against David just this year.

In April a jury ordered David to pay another employee more than $11 million, fired after she refused to have sex with him. And in October, yet another jury awarded another employee over $5 million for allegations that David put his hands on her throat and pushed her chair into a wall, and for telling her that she needed to get supplies for his “rape room.”

For his part, David does not seem to have learned his lesson. “This trial proves that not only is the system broken. It’s in a state of emergency.”

Quite a worthy nominee to end this year’s list.

Come back one week from today, when voting will open to name this year’s Worst Employer. I have a feeling Alki David will have a very nice showing when the votes are counted.

Previous Nominees:

The 1st Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Philandering Pharmacist

The 2nd Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Little Rascal Racist

The 3rd Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is … the Barbarous Boss

The 4th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is… the Flagrant Farmer

The 5th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is… the Fishy Fishery 

The 6th Nominee for Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Diverse Discriminator

The 7th Nominee for Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Disability Debaser

The 8th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Lascivious Leader

The 9th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Fertile Firing

The 10th Nominee for Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Exorcising Employee

The 11th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the ****y Supervisor

The 12th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Disguised Doctor

The 13th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Excoriating Executives
The 14th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Horrible Harasser
The 15th Nominee For The ‘Worst Employer of 2019’ Is … The Disability Demoter
The 16th Nominee for the “Worst Employer of 2019” Is … the Shameful Wall Builder
The 17th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Mauling Manager
Posted on December 2, 2019September 21, 2022

How Companies Can Embed Purpose in Their Employees for Higher Engagement and Retention

Millennials are now the largest generation in the U.S. workforce, but they’re increasingly unhappy at their jobs. According to the 2019 Deloitte Global Millennial Survey, 49 percent of millennials would quit their current jobs in the next two years if they could.

One likely reason for this is a lack of purpose at work. In fact, the Deloitte study found that only 37 percent of millennials think business leaders “make a positive impact on the world.”

A company with strong core values and a clear mission aligns people of every generation and role to perform their best, feel like they’re making a difference and stick around for a longer tenure.

To champion happy, engaged employees and send retention rates soaring, HR leaders need to cultivate a sense of purpose among their employees. Here’s how they can do that.

Hire for Purpose

You can’t create a culture of purpose without purpose-driven individuals, and it’s difficult to instill a sense of purpose in those who don’t have one. Your best bet is to screen for purpose during the hiring process.

Enthusiastic, mission-driven candidates will help uphold a larger sense of purpose in your organization. They’ll also likely lead by example. A Harvard Business Review study found that positive behaviors and attitudes are contagious and are often passed from manager to employee. Finding mission-driven workers at every level can help you weave purpose into your organization.

To find purpose-driven employees, ask candidates about their values during an interview, add an application question about defining purpose and outline your company’s mission in job postings.

Incorporate Core Values into the Onboarding Process

A longer and more meaningful onboarding process is tied to higher rates of retention, according to Harvard Business Review. Be sure to introduce new hires to your organization’s core values and mission from day one.

Then show them these values in action with stories about current colleagues living the purpose. New hires will feel more connected to your company and more inclined to forge meaningful relationships with their co-workers. That way, they’ll feel compelled to embody these values — with like-minded colleagues — as part of their job.

Give Your Employees Purposeful Gifts

More companies are using gifts to show employee appreciation. But most corporate gifts are generic and forgettable. Branded mugs and t-shirts can’t capture a company’s values in a meaningful way.

Purposeful gifting is an excellent way to demonstrate your company’s commitment to social impact and community engagement. Mission-driven employees, especially millennials, care deeply about environmental and social causes.

A 2019 Gallup poll revealed that millennials’ concern about global warming is at a high point, and the Case Foundation’s “Millennial Impact Report” shows that millennials care about social issues rather than institutions and believe in the power of activism.

Gifts can simultaneously support those causes and show gratitude to your employees. These gifts could include a food basket filled with snacks from a company that employs survivors of abuse, a backpack created from recycled materials, or a tumbler and coffee set whose manufacturer offers jobs to individuals with disabilities.

Send these gifts during important milestones in your employees’ tenures. For instance, consider sending a food basket during onboarding or a backpack to accompany a prospective employee’s offer letter. Gifts can show gratitude in a concrete way that emails, letters and words may not be able to.

Leadership Should Embody Your Organization’s Core Values

Your organization’s leadership should be constantly reinforcing your core values, purpose and mission. As an HR leader, you can broadcast that vision to every employee at your company.

Identify company thought leaders — inside or outside of the C-suite — and highlight their perspectives on company value-driven goals and initiatives through internal newsletters and media. Purpose feels more genuine when it’s voiced by a real person at your company.

Offer Opportunities for Employee Development

Organizational purpose should nurture an individual sense of purpose. According to a 2016 Gallup poll, 87 percent of millennials consider training and development opportunities important when considering new jobs. When employees feel supported to pursue their own career and self-fulfillment goals, they’ll feel better aligned with their company.

Create room for employees to have purpose-based goals in addition to performance-only evaluations. Then, give them the resources they need to achieve those goals: one-on-one mentorship, leadership development programs, retreats, volunteering and enrichment activities such as cultural competency training. When their employer encourages and invests in them, employees want to stay and keep growing.

Purpose Drives Satisfaction and Retention

Today’s workers are increasingly looking beyond the old indicators of job satisfaction, such as job security and fixed salary.

Through hiring strategies, onboarding, gifting, leadership and employee development, HR leaders have a chance at every step of the employee timeline to show each employee how they can enact their personal and company values.

Purpose is a two-way street: you can demonstrate your company’s values in the same breath that you demonstrate how you value your employees. Values, after all, mean nothing if they’re not put into action.

Posted on November 19, 2019June 29, 2023

Avoid Political Discussions in the Workplace? Riiiiiiiight …

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

According to a recent survey conducted by SHRM [pdf], American workers cannot hide from politics at work.

  • 42% of U.S. employees say they have personally experienced political disagreements at work
  • 44% say they have witnessed political disagreements at work
  • 34% believe that their workplace is not inclusive of differing political perspectives
  • 12% report they have personally experienced political affiliation bias or discrimination based on their political views
  • 56% state that political discussions at work have become more common over the past four years
Some will tell you that employees should avoid political discussions at work at all costs. I am not one of those people.
It’s simply not realistic to eliminate all political discourse from the workplace. Thanks to CNN, the internet and round-the-clock news cycles, politics has invaded every crevice of our existence (and it’s only going to get worse between now and 11/3/20). How can we expect employees simply to ignore conversing about these issues for the eight-plus hours a day they are at work?

Instead of banning these discussions, remind employees of your expectations regarding all workplace conversations — that they be civil, professional and respectful. And, if a co-worker violates these precepts you have the right to disengage and to go to a supervisor, management or HR to address the problem.

Political discussions need not be nasty, uncivil, or contemptuous, as long as we respect the rights of others to think differently, and hold them accountable when they fall short of this standard.

Posted on November 18, 2019June 29, 2023

Gay Man Claims He’s the Victim of Discrimination Because of His Sexual Orientation; It’s the Least of His Employer’s Problems

Wesley Wernecke, an ex-employee of New York event planning company Eventique, claims in his recently filed suit that the company intentionally alienated him, ostracized him and shut him out of the business after its CEO learned Wernecke was gay.

NBC News shares the details of the allegations in Wernecke’s lawsuit.

Wernecke had just begun to work for Eventique …when [CEO Henry Liron] David began to push him out of his role … .

A week after he was hired, Wernecke’s co-workers commented on his “girly” engagement ring. When a co-worker asked if his wife wore a similar ring, Wernecke replied that his partner, Evan, did.

From that point on, tension developed between Wernecke and his co-workers and David that had not existed before, according to the complaint.

In the interim months, the complaint alleges, Wernecke was ostracized and excluded from professional meetings and office social events, passed over for assignments with large commissions and subject to discriminatory remarks.

David … would exclude Wernecke from company lunches and frequent after-work drinks with “the fellas” in his office, the lawsuit states, and at one point, David gave an account Wernecke had been working on to another employee without consulting Wernecke.

These allegations, however, are the least of Eventique’s problems. According to Wernecke’s lawsuit, David significantly cut his salary (from $145,000 to $58,000.) David’s justification (again, according to the lawsuit): so that Wernecke’s pay would be on par with “the other females in the office.”

That’s not just an admission of sex discrimination against Wernecke, but also an admission of wage discrimination against the company’s female employees.

My advice to Eventique? Get out ahead of this issue, conduct a pay equity audit as soon as possible, and adjust salaries and wages as needed. Because if I’m a woman working at Eventique, I’m interviewing employment lawyers this week.

My gut, however, tells me that if a CEO is brazen enough to (allegedly) make those statements, he’s brazen enough to take this lawsuit head on.

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 … Page 53 Next page

 

Webinars

 

White Papers

 

 
  • Topics

    • Benefits
    • Compensation
    • HR Administration
    • Legal
    • Recruitment
    • Staffing Management
    • Training
    • Technology
    • Workplace Culture
  • Resources

    • Subscribe
    • Current Issue
    • Email Sign Up
    • Contribute
    • Research
    • Awards
    • White Papers
  • Events

    • Upcoming Events
    • Webinars
    • Spotlight Webinars
    • Speakers Bureau
    • Custom Events
  • Follow Us

    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • YouTube
    • RSS
  • Advertise

    • Editorial Calendar
    • Media Kit
    • Contact a Strategy Consultant
    • Vendor Directory
  • About Us

    • Our Company
    • Our Team
    • Press
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms Of Use
Proudly powered by WordPress