What Do We Owe Each Other?

While I have been safely ensconced in #SHRM18, I haven’t been able to read the news as much as I’d like.  When I finally looked at my twitter feed devoted to news, I became angry, sad, frustrated, and a whole other host of emotions.  So as midnight approaches, here are some things I hope all of my HR friends take from this fantabulous conference to put into their worlds:

Compassion.  Oscar Munoz explained why caring comes immediately after safety at United.  Caring means holding a door open for a family who just landed a half a terminal away and who are running to catch the plane to see a sick grandma.  While a policy may say one thing, caring about the people we serve (and for those of us in HR, that includes our employees and candidates) sometimes says something different.  If our employees are empowered with compassion, they will do the right thing for our customers, clients, and the greater world.

Compassion.  While he may not have said it in quite this way, Tim Sackett talked about how CEOs want to be able to personalize our HR plans because our people are individuals who want personalization.  Personalization means we have to know, acknowledge, and understand the needs of candidates and employees.  We can’t personalize unless we are compassionate with the people we help every day.

Compassion.  In discussing inclusion, Joe Gerstandt asked us to imagine a world where employees have space to be themselves, we ask and they speak about the personal parts of their life so they don’t feel they have to hide parts of themselves.  “How are you really?”  “How is your mom?  Is she feeling better?”  Adding circle tables to a break room so people can interact.  Integrating our values into conversations about our objectives, especially when we are struggling with an issue.  We want our employees to be innovative problem-solvers, and we can do that by being compassionate with them.

Compassion.  I was unable to attend Adam Grant’s presentation.  But from what I saw on the twitters, it was amazing.  One thing he challenged me on is ending exit interviews.  The argument (via him and some super HR pros) is that we should have known about the problems before the employee leaves.  This is absolutely true.  We should have known.  When an employee is so afraid to talk to us while still working for us, we have lost.  Lost big time.  We need employees to want to talk with us, to want to share the good stuff and the bad stuff.  This takes trust.  We can foster trust by being compassionate with our folks.  Knowing their names, their struggles, their successes.  When they see that we are interested and invested in their well-being, they will come to us with their concerns.

So, what do we owe each other?  Do we owe each person around us respect?  Hells to the yeah.  Do we owe each other attention when a problem crops up or a success is achieved?  Yes.  Do we owe someone time when he is asking for help in dealing with FMLA paperwork because his wife is ill?  Yes.  All of this takes compassion.  When we see people suffering, do we owe them help?  Yes.  It breaks my heart to see people suffering.  I hope that is true for everyone in HR.  We owe ourselves, our employees, and the people around us compassion.

I’m going to try to remain hopeful and do better myself.

 

Photo by Matheus Ferrero on Unsplash

Networking Importance

This week, I get to be at the world’s largest human resources conference – the SHRM Annual Conference in Chicago.  One friend calls this HR Christmas, and that is really true.  I get to see a lot of my HR friends and meet so many new friends.  It’s the best!

This brings me to my point and one that Jon Thurmond and Wendy Dailey preach on their #HRSocialHour podcast – networking is essential to being great at your job.  Between my morning messages with some employment attorneys (and a super cool HR lady and a snazzy forensic accountant) to regular tweetchat and direct messages all over the country, I have a community to bounce ideas off of, get a cautionary tale, or get told I’m way off track in my thinking or strategry.  If I didn’t have a network, I wouldn’t be able to do my job.

I mean that.  As a solo practitioner, I get to talk to myself all day.  But I’ll only get one perspective.  I do a better job for my clients when I’ve tapped my network for help getting out a conundrum.  As HR pros, we don’t operate in our own vacuums.  Yes, each employer is different, but another company’s experience with a particular tactic, strategy, or technology is helpful when you need to make a decision.  As an attorney, I talk with other attorneys – without violating privilege – to see if holes crop up in my argument or policy. My network is a saving grace.

One other point:  I truly dislike networking events.  I’m not the extrovert that I appear.  So, I’ve built a network over social media, over email, over coffee, over lunch, and through my work.  I avoid networking happy hours with a passion.  So building a network can happen even if you don’t like these events. You can do it.

Thank you to my network.  You all mean a lot to me!  Much appreciation and gratitude to all of you!

Image result for shrm annual conference 2018

Special thank you to Mitchell Hamline School of Law for sending me!  I’ve met lots of potential students!  And, thank you to SHRM and the social team for letting me hang out with my friends the blogger’s lounge and at the conference.

Relationships Fail

I’ve been a bit of a Donna Downer over the past two weeks.  With 15 harassment/respectful workplace training sessions, I have repeatedly explained the following:

Relationships fail at an alarming rate.  Think of all the relationships you suffer through before you get married.  Could be a lot, right?  Then, only 50 percent of marriages last.  So if you start a relationship at work, it might not last.  Are you ready for that?

Fifteen percent of relationships start at work.  This means that employers – and probably more than a few HR folk – wring their hands over what could happen with a relationship at work.  They may be worried about harassment, favoritism, and the distraction.  But they are also worried about the break-up.  Will the couple be professional?  Will they be petty?  Will their harassment and retaliation policies be invoked?  There are all sorts of worry.  Here’s what I’d like us to worry about.

Professionalism.  When we’re dating someone, we’re not professional.  We don’t keep physical contact to handshakes.  We may (overly) use emojis in emails and messages.  We share secrets, gossip, and vent about work stuff with our significant others.  These are all examples of behavior that is rarely “professional.”

Confidentiality.  Being in a relationship at work may mean we’re sharing sensitive and confidential information with someone who should not have the information.  If one of the couple is in payroll, processing bonus checks before bonuses are announced and shares what his partner is going to get before the announcement, this is a problem.  When we’re in the relationship, we believe we could trust our partner, yet people make mistakes.  Information goes farther than it should.  People find out about decisions before we’re ready to share them and

Harassment.  When couples get too touchy-feely in the workplace, others are uncomfortable.  As Black Widow once told Captain America, “Public displays of affection make people uncomfortable.”  When others are uncomfortable, harassment policies come into play.  It is not unusual to see another employee complain of harassment, especially when they believe (rightly or not) that favoritism is rearing its ugly head.

Chain of command.  When a relationship involves a manager and one of her employees, everything gets more complicated.  There will be allegations of favoritism.  If (when) the couple is in conflict with each other, it may (will) affect their working relationship.  Some of my clients prohibit these kinds of relationships, and I don’t blame them.  We may change the reporting structure, transfer one to a different shift or department.  The risks here given the imbalance of power are significant.

With those concerns, some employers resort to love contracts.  Please don’t.  Love contracts give the appearance that the employer is dictating the terms and conditions of the romance.  And, with the piece of paper, we look even more like we’re heavily monitoring the relationship.  Not a good look.  That said, HR and a manager can certainly have a conversation with the couple about their responsibilities to be professional and avoid the appearance of conflicts of interests.  This conversation should happen.  It even should be documented by HR, but please don’t have a love contract signed by the couple.  We want to be human at work, not overlords.

Despite some of the content of this post, I’m a huge fan of love.  We go into love with big eyes, big hearts, and bushy tails – as it should be.  When that love happens at work, there’s a new level of complexity where we have to be careful.  Call your friendly neighborhood employment attorney.

 

Photo by Kseniya Petukhova on Unsplash

Man-Bashing Training

Question:  Do we vilify men in harassment training?   

Think about that for a moment.  Do we use more man-on-woman examples?  (Probably.)  Do we need to change this?  Yes.  Harassment training is for everybody because everybody could harass.  According to a recent poll, one in seven men has experienced harassment at work. So, we can’t ignore men and their experiences just because so many women have similar experiences.

It is possible (and maybe even likely) that we’ve created an environment surrounding harassment training that we’ve alienated men or have come across as attacking them.  If this is the case, we should be criticized.  And, we should do better.  Here’s how I think we can do this:

Know our audience.  Every training should be customized to the workplace.  If the scenarios don’t feel real, the training won’t have an impact.  Because we have men in our workplaces, we can’t exclude their experience (and fear) from our training.  We should address it, and give a workable framework on what we expect from them.

Start with respect.  Often in trainings, I hear the statement, “I can’t even compliment a woman anymore.”  This comment comes from a man, usually over 40, who is sitting with his arms crossed, angry that he even needs to be in the room.  I turn to him and say, “There’s a difference between ‘That dress is very nice on you’ and ‘That dress hugs you in all the right ways.’”  He nods, and if I’m lucky, he chuckles a bit.  I then say, “We’re here to talk about that difference.”  That difference is respect.

For all of you labor lawyers cringing at this, listen up!  We live in a society where respect is under a near constant barrage.  We can’t operate in workplaces where respect and integrity aren’t at the core of what we are.  Without respect, we don’t get innovation.  So, we should make respect the cornerstone of our training. Our employees want respect.  They expect and deserve respect.  Starting our training talking about respect is what we must do.  If every conversation was respectful, we wouldn’t have harassment.

Have diverse examples.  Women-on-women harassment happens.  Men-on-men harassment happens.  So, we should have diverse examples.  Some of my best examples – examples that result in the most discussion – are man-on-man and woman-on-man.  We want to have a discussion and a bit of uncomfortableness.  Because we learn when we experience and are at least a bit uncomfortable, the discussion has any chance to really make a difference.

Use the whole scale of harassment.  Include examples of calling someone “sweetheart” or “man candy.”  Talk about staring, dirty jokes, and racial epithets.  You can talk about kissing, hugging, and even assault too, but ignoring the subtle stuff ignores where most harassment starts.  We don’t want this.

Ask, “what would you do?”  We should put our employees in the uncomfortable position of asking them what they would do.  You may be surprised by the responses.  Then, we should explain what we want them to do.  We don’t have to change their personalities to get between a harasser and his/her victim, but we should at least explain who we want them to tell.

Harassment training should mirror the tone of our workplaces.  It should set expectations and be meaningful for employees and managers.  It should make our employees contemplate their conduct without making them feel bad.

One more point:  Ladies, we don’t get to objectify men at work.  I’ve heard the argument that men have objectified women for a long time, so women should get to objectify men as a matter of fairness or even that they like it (uff da).  But like India has to grow green while we polluted for decades, we have to do the right thing.  We can’t objectify them either.  Enjoy a Magic Mike movie, but you can’t bring the poster into the office.  Ok?

This evening, I get to talk about trends in harassment training.  I’ve very excited (and a more than a bit nervous) about this.  Eliminating man-bashing will be one of the trends along with bystander and civility components, manager focus, and welcomeness elimination.  Any others you think I should talk about?

Photo by Nicholas Green on Unsplash

Die Annual Performance Review Die

Client calls.  Asks if they can fire Jerry for performance reasons.  The first (seriously, the very first) question I ask is, “what do Jerry’s performance reviews say?”  Experience has taught me that performance-related terminations usually have a homegrown enemy – the employee’s previous annual performance reviews.  What if we could eliminate the enemy by doing it better?

No one likes performance reviews.  Employees lose sleep the night before a review meeting.  Managers hate completing all the forms and fear having uncomfortable conversations.  HR turns into nagging mother-in-law types trying to track down managers to get all the forms turned in so that performance increases can be made.  No one likes this.

Performance reviews are rarely done well.  Most typically, the reviews are so vague they are meaningless.  They focus only on recent events and not performance over the entire year.  They are chockfull of bias.  Sometimes, a manager pretends he lives in Lake Wobegon where all the employees are above average.  Because we in HR are focused on handling the next fire, we don’t have time to push back on managers who do not do performance management well.  So, a poorly completed review gets stuck in a personnel file until I ask about it when the client wants to terminate.

Even when the termination is completely warranted and lawful, it’s the performance review that hurts.  The termination is going to have to get explained.  I’m confident that I am not the only employment attorney stuck explaining why an employee was terminated for bad performance just weeks after a positive review.  (We attorneys should form a secret society complete with a secret handshake.)  Our explanation is often couched in terms of a rapid performance decline as explained by a manager who “wanted to be nice” in the review but had observed poor performance that resulted in a lost customer, order, and so on.  The explanation by both the attorney and the manager is expensive for the company.

These are just a few of the reasons I want the annual performance review to die.  I’m not advocating for the end of performance management – quite to opposite.  I want more frequent, meaningful reviews for everyone.  Here’s my wishlist:

  • Conversation coaching.  Managers need to have difficult conversations with employees about performance.  Most managers, and particularly new managers, have not learned how to have these difficult conversations.  HR pros are conversation coaches, so we need to coach our managers on how to have these conversations.  Or, we need to get our managers the training and skills necessary.
  • Frequent discussions.  I love one-on-ones when they’re done right.  Brief meetings that discuss how projects are progressing that also discuss how the employee is doing are vital to successful businesses.  With this, managers get a sense of what roadblocks they can remove, and employees get critical feedback on how to do better.
  • Transparency.  People need to know how they’re doing.  Managers need to tell them.  Use examples.  Explain how things can improve.  Show.  If employees know where they stand, they may be able to understand why you’re firing them and not believe it is for some unlawful reason.
  • Recognize.  It isn’t just poor performance that needs to see the light of day.  Good performance does too.  Managers need to know how to champion those performers with potential as well as coaching those who just haven’t meet expectation quite yet.
  • Documents.  (Insert collective reader sigh here.)  Yes, feedback discussions should be documented.  I don’t care you document provided you document and I can get it later when we need it.  You can use the functionality of your HCM or you can have managers email themselves brief synopsis of each conversation.  With the conversation coaching, coach managers how to document as well, including how to remove references to protected class status, leave use, or other items that could get an organization in trouble.

Employees deserve to know how they are doing.  More importantly, they want to know how they are doing.  That’s what a great performance management process can do – get employees what information they need to do their jobs well so we can do our business well.

 

Photo by Tim Gouw on Unsplash

 

 

Sexism is Unlawful Too

Did you know that sexism is against the law all by itself?  Individuals can be sexist without sexually harassing someone?  Much of the #MeToo has focused on the ravages of sexual harassment  #TimesUp has focused a bit differently, focusing on the lack of advancement of women and wage gap issues.  This distinction is important.  While conduct that could constitute sexual harassment is often included in a sex discrimination cases, sexism by itself is also against the law.

Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination “based upon sex” includes many things (and arguably more things).  This “because of sex” provision in the law makes both sexism and sexual harassment unlawful.  It is just as unlawful to engage in sexist behavior as it is to sexually harass someone.  Both are demeaning, discriminatory, and dastardly.

Let’s start with sexual harassment.  Under the law, sexual harassment can be:  (1) quid pro quo which conditions employment (or advancement) on sexual favors or enduring sexual conduct; or (2) unwelcome conduct or comments that create a work environment that is intimidating, hostile, or offensive.  (We’ve dealt with welcomeness in another post.)  Often, sexual harassment cases include sexual touching, like sexual assault, but they don’t need to.  Frequent comments about someone’s sex life or sexual organs (including breasts) can create a hostile work environment.  Moreover, sexual harassment can be unlawful even if it has nothing to do with sexual desire.  It only has to do with sex and/or sexual stereotypes.

Plain, old-fashioned sexism can also cause a hostile work environment that is unlawful under Title VII.  Sexism is unlawful when enduring the offensive conduct or comments is a condition of employment or the conduct or comments are severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment is intimidating, hostile, or offensive.  Sounds familiar, right?  It should.  Yet, sexism doesn’t need to have anything to do with the act of sex – just a person’s sex.

Take for example demeaning comments like “A woman’s place is in the kitchen,” “Women should always be barefoot and pregnant,” “Grow a pair” or (my favorite excuse for derogatory behavior) “Boys will be boys.”  These comments are designed to demean women.  Period.  When these comments are pervasive (a/k/a happen a lot), they create a work environment that is hostile to women and unlawful.  When the comments are paired with conduct, such as only assigning men to do lifting tasks or segregating the sexes to handle particular work, the employer can (and should) be on the hook for discrimination.

These derogatory comments are often coupled with other signs of sexism.  This includes disparities in pay, lack of advancement, and even underrepresentation of women throughout an organization.  All of these need to be tackled even though they’re hard.  And, all need to be tackled even if no allegations of sexual harassment exist.

When an HR pro gets a report of sexism, she should treat it just as she would a report of racism.  Could the comments be demeaning to women?   Could the comments be offensive?  Could the conduct be an attempt to separate employees by gender?  Are other issues – like pay and representation – affected by sexism?  The question of whether any sexual activity – comments or conduct – occurred does not need to enter into the analysis unless it was reported too.  Just because sexual behavior is not included doesn’t mean the employer gets off scot-free.  Sexism is just as unlawful all by its lonesome.

 

Photo by Giacomo Ferroni on Unsplash