Source: Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, Harvard Business Review, August 23, 2019
…. Yet, there’s still one, big unaddressed issue that keeps popping up: burnout. In the U.S. alone, workplace stress costs the economy around $300 billion per year in absenteeism, diminished productivity, and legal and medical fees. Unsurprisingly, study after study shows that stress and burnout are major drivers of staff turnover, accidents, injuries, and substance abuse. Even among the top companies and the most desirable places to work this is a problem — and its generally the consequence of one thing: bad leadership.
In theory, leaders should be shielding their followers and subordinates from stress, operating as a beacon of calmness and safety throughout difficult times. In reality, however, leaders are more likely to cause stress than to reduce it. This problem is far more common than it should be. Millions of employees around the world suffer the consequences of bad leadership, including burnout, alienation, and decreased mental and physical wellbeing. This is particularly true when managers practice abusive behaviors, but at times, it’s their sheer incompetence that demotivates, demoralizes, and stresses out their teams. Lacking technical expertise, having no clue how to give or receive feedback, failing to understand potential, or a general inability to evaluate their subordinates’ performance, are just some of the common signs of incompetence.
To that end, here are four critical lessons you should consider:
There is no better cure than prevention. ….
It is more profitable to remove toxic leaders than to hire superstars. ….
Resilience can hide the effects of bad leadership. ….
Boring is often better. ….
Source: Maureen Minehan, Employment Alert, Volume 36 Issue 17, August 20, 2019
…Employers should not permit employees to continually extend their weekends by faking illness. By paying attention to patterns and intervening early, employers can reduce the number of days lost to faux sickness at the beginning and end of the week….
Source: William A. Diedrich, Neel Ghanshyam, and Marleen L. Sacks, Employee Relations Law Journal, Vol. 45, No. 1, Summer 2019
From the abstract:
The authors of this article discuss a case that highlights the need for employers to conduct thorough, neutral investigations in any situation involving allegations where a union member accused of misconduct, or who files a grievance, has the right to an adversarial hearing.
Source: Richard A. Bales, Katherine V.W. Stone, UCLA School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 19-18, Last revised: June 30, 2019
From the abstract:
Employers and others who hire or engage workers to perform services use a dizzying array of electronic mechanisms to make personnel decisions about hiring, worker evaluation, compensation, discipline, and retention. These electronic mechanisms include electronic trackers, surveillance cameras, metabolism monitors, wearable biological measuring devices, and implantable technology. These tools enable employers to record their workers’ every movement, listen in on their conversations, measure minute aspects of performance, and detect oppositional organizing activities. The data collected is transformed by means of artificial intelligence (A-I) algorithms into a permanent electronic resume that can identify and predict an individual’s performance as well as their work ethic, personality, union proclivity, employer loyalty, and future health care costs. The electronic resume produced by A-I will accompany workers from job to job as they move around the boundaryless workplace. Thus A-I and electronic monitoring produce an invisible electronic web that threatens to invade worker privacy, deter unionization, enable subtle forms of employer blackballing, exacerbate employment discrimination, render unions ineffective, and obliterate the protections of the labor laws.
This article describes the many ways A-I is being used in the workplace and how its use is transforming the practices of hiring, evaluating, compensating, controlling, and dismissing workers. It then focuses on four areas of law in which A-I threatens to undermine worker protections: anti-discrimination law, privacy law, antitrust law, and labor law. Finally, this article maps out an agenda for future law reform and research.
Source: Maureen Minehan, Employment Alert, Volume 36 Issue 12, June 13, 2019
An administrative assistant receives an email from a senior executive asking her to purchase 100 $25 gift cards to be distributed electronically to staff as a thank you for their hard work. The employee purchases the cards, charging the expense on her personal credit card. She sends the executive the cards as requested and submits the charge for reimbursement. When the accounts payable team contacts the executive for approval of the reimbursement, everyone gets a big surprise—the executive never asked for the gift cards. The employee had fallen for what’s known as a “phishing” scam and the scammers have already emptied the cards of their balances.
While the employee is contrite, the executive does not want to reimburse her because she believes the employee should have known better. The entire company had recently received correspondence from the IT department about phishing scams and how to avoid becoming a victim. The employee argues you have an obligation to pay her because she was acting in good faith to perform what she perceived as a duty of her job. The CEO of your organization wants to fire her for putting the company at risk.
If this sounds far-fetched, it’s not. A similar scenario recently played out at a company in the Washington, D.C. area. In the end, the company reimbursed the employee for half of gift cards’ costs, but hard feelings remain on all sides…..
Source: Rebecca Grant, Quartz, June 19, 2019
….Training isn’t the only place most sexual harassment programs fall short. Lilia Cortina, a professor of psychology, women’s studies, & management at the University of Michigan, has found that many organizations flounder in how they handle complaints. Cortina’s research reveals that companies’ formal grievance systems fail for four reasons: they are rarely used; people who file complaints regularly face retaliation; retaliation has negative long-term career and health consequences; and formal complaints rarely lead to the removal of the harasser. Filing a complaint can do more harm than good, if it does anything at all.
Given that current efforts to address workplace sexual harassment are clearly not working, what does an effective program look like? Cortina said the starting point has to be a commitment from leadership to meaningful cultural change, rather than checking a box or looking for a quick fix….
…..When harassment is identified, it’s important that discipline is consistent and does not give the appearance of undue favor. For example, the EEOC found that companies that successfully created a culture of non-harassment “acknowledged and owned” complaints, instead of attempting to bury them, and were willing to hold high-ranking and highly-valued employees accountable. In addition, studies show that harassment thrives in workplaces where there’s a stark power imbalance between men and women, so hiring and promoting more women, and compensating them equitably, can undermine the root causes.
There may always be people who abuse their power and act badly in opportunistic situations, but that doesn’t mean organizations are powerless to stop them…..
Source: Jerry Useem, The Atlantic, July 2019
These days, it seems, just about all organizations are asking their employees to do more with less. Is that actually a good idea? ….
…. Minimal manning—and with it, the replacement of specialized workers with problem-solving generalists—isn’t a particularly nautical concept. Indeed, it will sound familiar to anyone in an organization who’s been asked to “do more with less”—which, these days, seems to be just about everyone. ….. The phenomenon is sped by automation, which usurps routine tasks, leaving employees to handle the nonroutine and unanticipated—and the continued advance of which throws the skills employers value into flux. ….
….Minimal manning—and the evolution of the economy more generally—requires a different kind of worker, with not only different acquired skills but different inherent abilities. It has implications for the nature and utility of a college education, for the path of careers, for inequality and employability—even for the generational divide. And that’s to say nothing of its potential impact on product quality and worker safety, or on the nature of the satisfactions one might derive from work. Or, for that matter, on the relevance of the question What do you want to be when you grow up?
How deep these implications go depends, ultimately, on how closely employers embrace the concepts behind minimal manning…..
Source: Caitlin Flanagan, The Atlantic, July 2019
For 30 years, we’ve trusted human-resources departments to prevent and address workplace sexual harassment. How’s that working out?
…The experience left me with a question: If HR is such a vital component of American business, its tentacles reaching deeply into many spheres of employees’ work lives, how did it miss the kind of sexual harassment at the center of the #MeToo movement? And given that it did, why are companies still putting so much faith in HR? I returned to these questions many times over the course of the following year, interviewing workplace experts, lawyers, management consultants, and workers in the field.
Finally, I realized I had it all wrong. The simple and unpalatable truth is that HR isn’t bad at dealing with sexual harassment. HR is actually very good at it…..
…..But the real reason many workers don’t love human resources is that while the department often presents itself as functioning like a union—the open door for worker complaints, the updates on valuable new benefits—it is not a union. In a strong job market, HR is the soul of generosity, making employees feel valued and significant. But should the economy change, or should management decide to go in another direction, HR can just as quickly become assassin as friend…..
….If employers judged HR departments by their ability to prevent sexual harassment, most would have gotten a failing grade long ago. What HR is actually responsible for—one of the central ways the department “adds value” to a company—is serving as the first line of defense against a sexual-harassment lawsuit. These two goals are clearly aligned, but if the past year has taught us anything, it’s that you can achieve the latter without doing much of anything at all about the former…..
Source: Anthony W. Kraus, Labor Law Journal, Vol. 70, Issue No. 2, Summer 2019
Nondisparagement provisions, which commit one contracting party to refrain from derogatory comment about another, are familiar features in employee severance agreements and settlement agreements. They also have been commonly included in some employment contracts, typically for top executives earning substantial salaries, to prohibit post-termination recriminations from such highly compensated personnel.
More recently, such provisions also have begun to appear in employment contracts with ordinary new hires, exacting a threshold pledge of no adverse comment both during and after the relationship. The cause appears to be the emergence of social media as outlets for criticism of businesses, which both consumers and employees have exploited to publicize grievances. In response, some manufacturers and service providers have sought to gag purchasers through nondisparagement provisions in certain kinds of consumer contracts, prompting widespread protest and remedial action at both the federal and state level. Despite that reaction, some employers also have tried to adapt the same broad preemptive approach, expanding resort to such provisions in the workplace.
Source: Lauren A. Rivera, András Tilcsik, American Sociological Review, Early View, March 12, 2019
From the abstract:
Quantitative performance ratings are ubiquitous in modern organizations—from businesses to universities—yet there is substantial evidence of bias against women in such ratings. This study examines how gender inequalities in evaluations depend on the design of the tools used to judge merit. Exploiting a quasi-natural experiment at a large North American university, we found that the number of scale points used in faculty teaching evaluations—whether instructors were rated on a scale of 6 versus a scale of 10—significantly affected the size of the gender gap in evaluations in the most male-dominated fields. A survey experiment, which presented all participants with an identical lecture transcript but randomly varied instructor gender and the number of scale points, replicated this finding and suggested that the number of scale points affects the extent to which gender stereotypes of brilliance are expressed in quantitative ratings. These results highlight how seemingly minor technical aspects of performance ratings can have a major effect on the evaluation of men and women. Our findings thus contribute to a growing body of work on organizational practices that reduce workplace inequalities and the sociological literature on how rating systems—rather than being neutral instruments—shape the distribution of rewards in organizations.