Category Archives: General

10 Costly Mistakes Business Leaders Make on Twitter

General, , ,

I am pleased to share my latest Entrepreneur article on mistakes business leaders making regarding the use of Twitter.

My profession affords me the opportunity to work and talk with many entrepreneurs and other leaders about social media. Just as important, I observe their use (or nonuse) of social media.

Twitter remains one of the most popular platforms for people to exchange ideas, promote news and express opinions. I’m a social media enthusiast, but my work in employment law makes me all too aware of the risks inherent in these instant-post tools.

My Top 10 list of costliest mistakes might surprise you. Its entries stem as much from underuse as from misuse.

1. Not using Twitter.
Some entrepreneurs and business leaders still believe social media is a waste of time. Respectfully, they are wrong. This means of communication no longer is cutting-edge. It’s mainstream, and Twitter is firmly at its center. Use it to your advantage.

2. Only sharing.
Some leaders have exuberant spirits. They freely share ideas and thoughts. While sharing is wonderful, it’s only part of the equation. Social media is about connecting, not simply spouting or increasing your profile. Every leader should keep this in mind at all times.

3. Retweeting without reading.
Other people retweet articles or posts seemingly without reading the full content. In these circumstances, a user’s comment might not match the source material. Retweeting without understanding the context can be disingenuous. If there’s bias or offensive conduct in the underlying tweet, this practice also can be dangerous.

4. Following only like-minded individuals.
Talk about diversity often centers on gender, race and other groups (or classes) protected by law. But there’s another crucial aspect to consider. Cognitive diversity offers a different perspective or opinion.

Interacting with only like-minded individuals limits your vantage point. Following those with whom you often disagree will expose you to different views and possibilities.

5. Interacting intermittently.
At the risk of overstating it, you need to be a player. There’s so much social media activity that if you put a toe in the water only occasionally, you aren’t likely to make vital connections. You don’t need to tweet every day, but tweeting once a week isn’t enough to keep up your profile.

6. Attacking others.
From time to time, you’ll see something that produces a strong, negative reaction. It is best not to use social media as a way to attack others. There are polite ways to disagree. Just as in interpersonal matters, sometimes the best response is none at all. Why give more light to an idea you believe belongs in the dark?

7. Responding every time you’re attacked.
Anyone on social media who takes a stand has been attacked. If you counter-punch everyone who is critical of your stance, others might see you as thin-skinned. Pick your battles wisely so you aren’t labeled an insecure snowflake. Strength can come from silence as surely as it can from powerful words.

8. Failing to be transparent.
Federal Trade Commission rules require individuals to disclose when they are promoting products or services with which they are identified. For example, if you’re praising an item your employer manufactures, you must provide this disclaimer. Transparency, though, is much more than a question of satisfying FTC regulations. It’s good business.

9. Not separating the personal from the professional.
All business is personal and all politics are local, as the sayings go. In these hyperpartisan times, you’d be hard-pressed to find someone without at least one or two deeply held beliefs.

If you tweet on political issues or other topics that might be seen as controversial, you’d be well-advised to make it clear your views are yours alone — not those of your employer. It’s easy enough to include that distinction as part of your Twitter profile. Here’s an added caveat: Do not include the name of your employer or company. That only solidifies the precise connection you’re trying to avoid.

10. Tweeting only business-related items.
Social media is a pervasive form of mass communication, and you should be thoughtful about what you tweet. But if you spend all your mental energy trying to please everyone, you won’t really connect with anyone.

As you develop your brand, consider sharing your thoughts or posting articles on issues beyond your business focus. In my personal life, I’m very involved in animal rescue, I love Bruce Springsteen, and I’m mad about “Mad Men.” Expressing myself has led to meeting many kindred spirits — some of whom now are clients, too.

10 Keys to Grassroots Advocacy for HR Professionals

General

I am pleased to share my latest article posted in the SHRM HR Magazine.

Federal grassroots advocacy for HR is just as important as ever in 2017. The issues may change, but the need to support and represent the profession surely won’t. Plus, as former Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill famously said, “All politics is local.”

For example, many ruby red states over the past two elections have raised minimum wages materially by way of the ballot box.

And let’s not forget municipalities. Expect the growing trend of local regulation to increase when it comes to matters such as “ban-the-box” ordinances, mandatory sick pay and predictable schedules.

Regardless of their political leanings, HR professionals must continue to be involved so that their voice is heard on workplace public-policy issues. Here are 10 suggestions to make grassroots advocacy more effective without annoying employers.

1. Follow proposed legislation. First, track bills at the federal, state and local level.

Be careful not to focus only on developments in the states in which you operate. To the contrary, be mindful of developments in other jurisdictions, particularly neighboring ones. Legislation spreads.

2. Evaluate bills critically. Avoid knee-jerk responses. Make sure you read the language of a bill before jumping to conclusions.

In evaluating proposed legislation, focus not only on the intent but also on the foreseeable consequences. Many a bill with laudable intent may produce adverse consequences for the employees it is designed to protect.

3. Know your representatives. The first time you need help should not be the first time you meet your representatives, either at the federal or state level. Get to know them and their staffs before issues arise.

Staff members are key gatekeepers for elected representatives. Treat them with respect—not only because they deserve it but also because if you don’t, you will not get access to their bosses.

4. Educate your elected officials. Advocacy is all about relationships, including with your representatives.

Meredith Nethercutt, senior associate for member advocacy at the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), explains it well: “There are only a handful of federal members of Congress who have any kind of background in human resources. That is why sharing your personal stories and testimonials as HR professionals with those elected to represent you in office is so critical. After all, if you don’t speak up to those who are crafting and voting on workplace legislation on behalf of your organization and employees, no one else will do it for you.”

5. Get others involved. Usually, it is not enough for HR professionals to advocate on HR issues. It is important to get others to make the case for you, too.

Consider educating members of your C-suite on why a proposed bill might be helpful or hurtful to HR. See if they want to join in the advocacy efforts.

6. Consider legal issues. Do not forget that whatever you say to a representative is discoverable in a trial. This includes communication that occurs via letter, e-mail and social media as well as verbally.

I think of a letter I once saw that said something to the effect of “There is no way we could comply with this bill if it became law.”

In the hands of a plaintiff’s lawyer, a statement like that could be dynamite.

7. Assess personal dynamics. SHRM needs and appreciates the volunteer work of those engaged in HR advocacy, but you should check with a member of your executive team before getting involved. There may be reasons your employer does not want you to oppose a bill, even though the effects on HR could be negative.

For example, it is possible that the sponsor of the bill is also supporting legislation that would be helpful to the company’s business interests. The last thing you want to hear from your boss is that you have alienated the legislation’s sponsor.

8. Consider the impact on the workforce. When communicating with representatives, remember that what you say could find its way back to the workforce.

Sometimes proposed bills and regulations can cause you to become incredibly frustrated. Feeling aggravated is one thing; saying something that devalues your employees is another.

For example, in opposing the overtime rule, an employer might have been frustrated by the regulation but shouldn’t have said something like, “Our employees will just have to deal with it if we hire more workers to avoid unnecessary overtime.”

Be thoughtful in how you oppose suggested legislation that, on its face, would appear to benefit employees. Focus on the unintended adverse consequences that might apply to the workforce.

[SHRM resource: SHRM Policy Action Center]

9. Be practical. Pick your battles. There may be political reasons not to oppose a bill—if there is virtually unanimous support for it, for example.

Conversely, do not inadvertently give publicity to a bill that is going nowhere.

10. Engage in business meetings. Have a business focus in your meetings with your representatives or their staffs.

Acknowledge the pros and cons of the bill at issue to establish your credibility. Then explain clearly your position and ask for support.

Be prepared with bullet points, be sensitive to the representative’s time, be ready to shorten your pitch, and always be respectful and ethical. Last but not least, make sure to thank the representative for his or her time and always follow up with an e-mail reiterating your gratitude for the meeting and your key points.

“Remember, the crux of your engagement, and of these ongoing interactions with elected officials, is to build solid relationships,” says Mike Aitken, SHRM’s vice president of government affairs.

“While you may differ in perspective and opinion on various issues with your lawmakers, your ability to serve as a trusted and reliable resource to those in public office will be invaluable—now and in the busy months ahead.”

Kindness

General, , ,

I am pleased to share my latest post to The SHRM Blog on kindness and leadership.

I like to read and re-read blogs on leadership. They are helpful reminders on what I need to keep doing (or not doing) and where there are opportunities for personal growth. Although expressed from different perspectives, the articles often cover the same attributes or competencies that we rightfully expect from good leaders.

I am struck by how often we need to be reminded to listen. Sound too basic? If you are preparing your response when someone is talking, you are you fully listening? The answer is NO, and I have to remind myself of this on a regular basis.

And, of course, we are reminded that we need to express our recognition. But, too much attention is paid to recognizing concrete accomplishments and not enough to existential recognition: acknowledging someone exists by saying hello or non-verbally recognizing their presence.

I am glad to see more articles/blogs focus on caring. If you don’t care for your employees, they won’t care for you. So, some of our caring, if we are honest, in self-serving. .

But absent from the blogs that I have read is one attribute that feels endangered in our fast-moving, highly-polarized and sometimes cruel world: kindness. By kindness, I mean warm and gentle thoughtfulness with no expectation of a return on investment.

A casual smile. Picking up coffee for a colleague. Pulling back when you know someone needs space. Leaning in when you sense someone needs to talk. Asking someone if they are feeling better. Looking the person in the eyes with attention and not agitation.

We all have heard the expression “random acts of kindness.” That we need to be reminded to do them randomly speaks to their deficit in the ordinary course.

Being kind to people means more than caring about their concerns or appreciating their contribution. It means truly recognizing the humanity of a colleague without thinking about how what you do may benefit you.

As leaders, we need to do more than perform random acts of kindness. Kindness needs to be in our DNA. That does not mean being weak. And, it does not mean avoiding hard decisions. One of the best HR people with whom I have the pleasure to work was thanked after she terminated someone. The terminated employee thanked her for her kindness.

The antithesis of kindness is bullying. When I see bullies, I see weak snowflakes – those who can feel good about themselves only when they make others feel less than them.

When I see kindness, I usually see strength, someone strong and secure enough that they can risk being and being seen as more gentle. And that leads to the ultimate question: are you strong enough to be kinder?

Women’s History Month and the Need for More Male Allies

General, , ,

I am pleased to share my latest post to the SHRM blog.

This month, we focus on the contributions women have made, including in medicine, law, business, and literature.

But we must do more than recognize these contributions. We must acknowledge that, at least in the business world, the talent women offer is grossly under-utilized and painfully undervalued.

Late last year, a study on gender and leadership conducted jointly by LeanIn.Org and McKinsey & Co. was published. According to the study, women account for only 19% of the C-suite executives (based on responses from 132 companies).

The numbers are even more distressing if one focuses narrowly on Fortune 500 companies. The percentage of female CEOs dropped in 2016 to only 4-percent. Yes, 4% (even though women are approximately 50% of workforce).

Needless to say, women are grossly underrepresented at the top. And, that hurts women more directly but men too, because companies indisputably do better when there is gender (and other) diversity at the top.

On the same day as the study was released, the Wall Street Journal published an article written by Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg “Women Are Leaning In—but They Face Pushback.”As almost everyone knows, Sandberg wrote (3 years ago) the ground-breaking book, Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead.

When Sandberg wrote Lean In, she acknowledged the obstacles women who want to lead face. She chose to focus more heavily on how women can navigate these obstacles.

In her WSJ article, Sandberg focuses on the wall women hit when they lean in (a meme for “go for it if you want it.”) Citing the McKinsey/LeanIn study, Sandberg states: “women who negotiate are 67% more likely than women who don’t [negotiate] to receive feedback that their personal style is “intimidating,” “too aggressive,” or “bossy,” and they are more likely to receive that kind of feedback than men who negotiate.”

This is consistent with what Sandberg wrote in Lean In:

  • “She is very ambitious is not a compliment in our culture.”
  • “Men are continually applauded for being ambitious and powerful and successful, but women who display these same traits often pay a social penalty.”
  • “When a man is successful, he is liked by both men and women.  When a woman is successful, people of both genders like her less.”
  • “But since women are expected to be concerned with others, when they advocate for themselves or point to their own value, both men and women react unfavorably.”

Sandberg’s article is a clarion call for companies to do more. In this blog, I want to narrow the focus: men must do more. And, women’s history month is a great time for men to kick into action.

Too often the burden of eradicating gender bias is left to women. This is wrong in so many ways.

Women and men alike are hurt by gender bias. Why should women alone tackle the problem?

Mentoring and sponsoring is essential, yet, in many organizations, the responsibility as it relates to women is placed almost solely on women. This investment in others diverts women in or near leadership from their own goals. Why should women bear this responsibility alone?

Also, men have a perspective that is needed to tackle the problem. Gender diversity is a “plus” and that includes in tackling gender bias.

We need more male allies. Of course, that means at looking at systemic issues. For example, men need to acknowledge the gender pay gap and work to close it. Denying the gap is as credible as denying labor pains.

But, guys, you can’t do that in one day. But there are a lot of things you can do every day “in the moment.” Here are but a few examples:

  • Continue to call out successes by men who work for and/or with you.  But make sure you do the same for women and with the same enthusiasm.  If you are aware that unconsciously this may not be your proclivity, you can consciously overcome the bias.
  • If you begin to think that a woman is too assertive, pushy, bossy (get the picture?), focus on what she is doing and then ask yourself:  how would I react if Jim rather than Jane were engaging in this behavior?  Again, with conscious awareness of the potential unconscious double standard, you can overcome it.
  • Use your voice to speak loud and often about the business benefits of gender diversity.  Yes, it is a moral issue, but money talks so talk money.
  • Speak up when you hear assertive women called “bitch” or worse.  To ignore is to condone.  There is no such thing as a passive bystander if you are a leader.
  • Engage in cross-gender sponsorship and mentorship.  Where men hold disproportionate power, this is necessary for women with potential to have access to power. Plus, you will learn as much as you impart. Don’t wait for a formal program. Time is of the essence.

Women’s history month is about men, too. It is an opportunity for men to commit to do more to increase equality, and with that, the profitability of their organizations.

Pal, will you make this commitment?

This blog is not legal advice, should not be construed as applying to specific factual situations or as establishing an attorney-client relationship.

Getting To NO in the New Year and Shark Tank!

General, ,

I am pleased to share my latest article posted to TalentCulture.

We all know we need to say NO at times. Otherwise, every YES that should be a NO risks resulting in a NO that should be a YES down the road. But saying NO can be incredibly hard.

Saying yes all of the time, is not simply people pleasing, although that is a piece of it. It is also the fear of a lost opportunity, and all that could flow from it.

So before discussing some suggestions on how to say NO, let me tell you the 3 biggest mistakes I see:

1. Non-Responsiveness

Of course, you cannot respond to every e-mail or phone call with someone trolling for business. But what if you have a business relationship with someone and that includes an internal colleague.

Not responding, repeatedly, may feel like existential bullying. “You don’t even recognize that I exist.”

It may be even worse if there is selective non-responsiveness. It may be seen as cowardice or arrogance. I am uncomfortable responding so I won’t, or I will respond when I want.

Too busy to respond? Perhaps you need to think a little more about relationships and not just tasks.

2. Short Response: NO

Many of us have heard the expression, NO is a complete sentence. But whether it is an effective sentence is a different story.

Do you have to tell someone why? No.

Do you want to build or maintain a relationship? Then the “why” is important.

3. Too Much Detail

As bad as just saying NO is to explain all the reasons why is also bad.

I can’t because (followed by every possible reason).

Three problems with this:

First, it takes too long to read or listen.

Second, it may come off as whiny.

Third, it may invite negotiations. “Isn’t what I have asked you to do more important than….?”

So how do you say NO?

I was thinking about this as I watched Shark Tank. Pay attention to how you feel when each shark says NO.

Mr. Wonderful can be anything but. At times, his NOs are just plain mean.

Sometimes he attacks the idea. Other times, he attacks the person.

No negative consequences for him because the objects of his attacks leave the shark tank and connect no more.

But what if you want or need to work with someone after the NO? More lessons from Shark Tank follow.

While the other sharks are good at saying NO, particularly Robert Herjavec, none is as good as Lori Grenier, in my opinion. So, after many episodes, I have broken down what I call the Grenier approach to saying NO.

1. Acknowledges the Value/Need

Lori always, or almost always, says something positive about the proposal initially.

Let’s go outside the tank. Try this: Appreciate what you are doing and/or asking.

A few kind words never hurt. Kindness is under-valued.

2. Explains why it does not work for her

Lori does not attack the person or the product.

She explains why it won’t work for her.

Outside the shark tank, consider:

– I appreciate your need but we don’t have the money in the budget.
– I like your idea but I don’t have the time with other commitments.

3. Wishes the person luck

After saying she is out, Lori invariably wishes the person luck. Yes, you can be tough and kind!

Sometimes wishing the person luck works outside the shark tank, too. “I cannot participate but wish you luck with X.”

Sometimes you will need to go further if it is an internal colleague: “I cannot do this now but I would love to help when I can.”

Making NO Comfortable for You to Say

You need to say NO. But you need to do so in a way that does not antagonize or worse.

You want to say NO that conveys respect. Watch Lori Grenier on Shark Tank to hone your skills.

I appreciate your reading this short blog.

I have other commitments so I must stop.

But I wish you luck in saying NO to tasks in way that says YES to the relationship.

Love, Lust and Valentine’s Day

General, ,

I am pleased to share my latest post to the SHRM blog.

There were times when I cautioned HR to keep a firewall between Valentine’s Day and the workplace. The reason for the caution is the initial purpose of Valentine’s Day.

We all know that the initial purpose of Valentine’s Day was for individuals to express their love to those whom they love in a non-platonic way. I was tempted to say romantic, but I once had a manager deny there was any romantic relationship because “it was only sex.”

Over time, however, the meaning of Valentine’s Day has changed. Just look at cards to parents, grandparents, kids, etc. There is no sexual message.

Many employees acknowledge the day too by simply saying “have a nice Valentine’s Day.” I don’t think they mean: “I want you here and now.”

And, some managers will bring in Valentine’s candy or other treats. I don’t think they have any predatory motive.

So, I am not sure it is reasonable to say Valentine’s Day has no place in the workplace. Does that not make an employer seem excessively restrictive? And that may have an unintended effect of undermining critical restrictions.

But here are 8 guard rails to consider as we approach Valentine’s Day:

  1. Okay to say Happy Valentine’s Day. I would avoid happy V.D.
  2. Better to say Happy Valentine’s Day to a group than an individual. You don’t want anyone to feel singled out.
  3. Be thoughtful not only on what you say but also how you say it. An accompanying wink can make earnings disappear in a blink.
  4. Managers should be more careful if, when and how. Perhaps respond only but don’t initiate.
  5. Managers should never send a card, e-mail or social media message to a subordinate over whom they have direct or indirect authority. Most certainly the card should not include an audio of I Honestly Love You.
  6. Never ask anyone who their Valentine is or whether they have one, unless you want to be a defendant.
  7. Any food you might bring in can be shared without fanfare. Don’t need to say anything. The food will speak for itself.
  8. Remember, not everyone has a “Valentine” in the traditional sense. While not having an intimate partner is not a “protected group,” such individuals are human beings who matter. Be thoughtful on how such individuals may feel when we share what is a common bond to most but not all.

The business world is becoming painfully competitive. Sometimes businesses get lost in defining and crowing about their cultures without genuinely caring for people who compose it.

No, HR does not need to coddle employees, but we need to help bring back some of the warmth in our workplaces that has been replaced by an increase in harassing behaviors, bullying and political infighting.

That we need to be careful on Valentine’s Day not to send intended to unintended romantic messages does not mean that our workplaces would not benefit if our words and actions manifested the love we feel in our hearts.

If you share metaphorically a little love in your heart:
And the work world will be a better place
And the work world will be a better place
For you and me
You just wait and see

IT and HR Must Work Together to Improve Security

General, , ,

I am pleased to share my latest article for SHRM regarding the role of HR in cyber security.

Cyber security is a significant concern for businesses, and it is only going to get bigger.

In 2016, many companies of all sizes were affected by cyber attacks from outsiders.

But some cyber security breaches are inside jobs. Sometimes they are deliberate. Other times, the breach is due to human error. Either way, these attacks can have disastrous effects.

The National Cyber Security Alliance, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, reports that a data breach can shutter a small business. And a survey by Russian cybersecurity company Kaspersky Lab, 2016 Corporate IT Security Risks, stated that the average amount of damage caused by one attack may cost small and medium businesses up to $99,000.

The practice of cybersecurity carries with it legal and reputational implications. So the question becomes: Who owns these responsibilities?

However, I bristle at the notion that a single function “owns” an issue because then employees in other functions may believe by negative implication that they do not need to do anything. In this case, while IT plays a central role, ownership of cybersecurity must go beyond IT and include HR, among other departments.

Let’s divide HR’s role into five categories.

HR as the Problem 

Sometimes in HR we feel like we are the policy or procedure police. Well, sometimes we are the culprit, too. As you well know, HR has access to highly sensitive information, including employees’ Social Security numbers and some medical information. HR needs to evaluate whether the background check procedure for those seeking positions in the HR department is robust enough. In some organizations, criminal record and credit checks are done for some employees in finance and IT but not for employees in HR. HR needs to consider this gap.

HR Policies

HR may want to consider including in the employee handbook or other policies a summary, developed with IT, of do’s and don’ts relative to cyber security. This is not in lieu of but in addition to mandatory employee training.
Here is but one example: Employees must report immediately the loss of any device, including a mobile phone, that contains their employer’s confidential information. Immediate reporting and rapid wiping can mitigate the risk materially.

HR and Employee Training

As noted, employee training is essential. IT can develop the training program, but HR plays a key role, too. For example, HR can listen to the proposed program and make sure it works for the intended audience. Simply telling employees not to fall for phishing schemes is meaningless unless you define phishing and give concrete examples.

HR and a Rapid Response Plan 

In the event there is evidence that someone is appropriating confidential information, HR needs to be prepared to work with IT in questioning the employee and taking corrective action as appropriate. These are not IT investigations alone. IT should not be expected to have the expertise necessary to handle employee rights issues in the context of these investigations.

HR and a Business Continuity Plan 

If there is a cyber attack or an internal breach, whether deliberate or as the result of carelessness, the company is going to need to move quickly in response. How will the organization work if its systems are shut down? When must employees be paid if they cannot work? Legally, what notification requirements exist if certain employee information (or that of patients or customers) has been exposed? As with any other crisis, whether it be a weather disaster, an incident of violence or a pandemic, the role of HR in the business continuity plan cannot be underestimated.

The Problem With Saying Women Are Better At…

General, , , ,

I am pleased to share my latest post to Philadelphia Business Journal.

A recent study at Harvard T.H.Chan School of Public Health concluded that hospitalized patients treated by female physicians show lower mortality and readmission rates.

This study is getting a lot of media attention, and in many cases, the conclusions drawn go beyond the findings of the study.

Take, for example, the NPR headline: “Patients treated by Female Doctors Fare Better Than Those Treated By Men.” NPR is but one example. Here’s one more.

On a national TV program, the question was asked: who makes better doctors, women or men? Citing the report, the on-air talent said “women.”

But it is not just about doctors. The internet is replete with articles that report on studies that ask if or conclude that women are better leaders than men.

I understand why the Harvard study is vitally important. Women still face very real bias in medicine (actually, everywhere), and we need to increase our focus on the contributions of women that are often under-appreciated and profoundly unrecognized to combat that bias (including pay to which I will return).

But would we ever ask: who makes better doctors, white people or people of color? Hispanics or African Americans?

Of course not! But why is it okay with gender? Well, it’s not.

It’s no more okay than the surveys that ask would you rather work for a male or female boss? In some cases, the majority answer “men.”

Would we ever ask if you want to work for a person who is white or a person of color? The question indulges in bigotry and so does the question on gender. If someone want to choose the gender of their boss, let them start their own business and work for themselves.

We need to sell the benefits that go with diversity to increase support for smashing conscious bias and bringing to conscious awareness implicit bias. Stated otherwise, if we want to cream the crop, and who doesn’t, we need to harness the talent women bring to the table and not nearly enough is done to do just that.

But we need to be careful not to stereotype in our efforts to eradicate bias and increase inclusion. There is no such thing as “benign” stereotyping and here’s why.

First, the stereotyping creates higher expectations for its intended beneficiaries. It is not enough for women to be competent doctors, leaders, etc. No, they must reach our inflated expectations.

Let me give you an example. Let’s assume that the average male is a “5” on a scale of “1” to “9” in terms of core competencies. If we assume women are stronger, we may expect a “7.”

Now, we interview a woman who is a “6” and a man who is a “5.” She is the stronger candidate but he may appear better because he meets our expectations and she does not meet our inflated expectations.

Second, the stereotyping may result in discrimination against men of talent. This is both a talent and a legal issue. Under the law, gender bias knows no gender.

Finally, by focusing on gender, we don’t get at the root cause of what makes someone more effective. Our focus should be on competencies.

For example, in both leadership and medicine, strong communication skills are critical. That explains, in part, the results of the Harvard study.

So our focus should be on the communication and other skills that have resulted in women outperforming men. And, then we should make sure that, when we, hire, evaluate, promote and pay, we consider those key skills.

When we focus on competencies, as we should, it very well may mean that more women than men will thrive but we are recognizing a core skill and not unwittingly engaging in gender bias. In medicine, the failure to understand the difference literally can have life and death consequences.

Lost in the headlines beyond which many do not go is another key finding. The story within the story is that, while the women performed better than men in this study, they still made materially less money.

The gender pay gap is alive and well in medicine and virtually every aspect of corporate America. Of course, there are legal reasons to address it.

But the business imperative is just as great. Imagine if those gifted doctors who are women leave the profession out of frustration for being paid less, even where they not just meet but exceed the performance of their male peers? That, too, is a life and death issue, literally.

Swinging for Singles

General, , ,

I am pleased to share my latest post to The SHRM Blog regarding goals in the new year.

As we start the New Year, many of us have made resolutions for personal growth in the professional space. After a few days off and the excitement of the promise of a new beginning, many of us set bodacious goals for ourselves. When we do so, we set ourselves up for failure.

To be clear, I am not talking about business goals. We need to stretch ourselves and often are stretched by the business needs beyond our own stretching. I am talking about how we handle ourselves in reaching those goals. That’s the kind of personal growth about which I write.

Many opportunities for growth are our strengths taken to the extreme. For example, we are driven but sometimes lack the patience with others who don’t drive at the same speed. This may leave them feeling less than so they deliver less than we expect of them.

The bodacious goal is to become as copacetic as the colleague who is deeply driven but also has breathtaking patience. You may not be wired that way. I for sure am not.

The more realistic goal is to try to be more patient (not patient) and think of specific situations where it is attainable. Not sure of what they are? Ask a trusted colleague. Or, think of times when you did not get the response you had hoped for and ask: what was my role?

When I was a little guy, I loved playing baseball. I had a great eye but was not very strong. So, I swung for singles and did rather well. When I swung for the home run, I missed every time. Actually, the same is true for doubles.

In life, I try to swing for singles. And, that includes in personal growth. I think if we are realistic and gentle with ourselves, we are more lucky to be successful and gentle with others.

So happy New Year and may the year be full of singles. And, if you miss the ball, keep swinging. If you improve by “only” 30%, you are batting 300. Not bad, huh?

This blog is not legal advice, should not be construed as applying to specific factual situations or as establishing an attorney-client relationship.

10 Ways to Celebrate the Holidays and Minimize Legal Risk

General, ,

I am please to post my most recent blog on 10 ways to maximize inclusion and minimize the risk of the holidays: https://www.entrepreneur.com 

The rapidly-approaching holiday season can be the most wonderful time of the year, but it also poses legal and employee relations challenges to entrepreneurs of all sizes. But most of these challenges can be mitigated with some thoughtful planning. So here’s a checklist of issues to minimize the risk that your December celebrations will result in January claims.

1. Don’t eliminate Christmas.
Don’t eliminate Christmas from the holiday season, says this Jewish guy. It’s a beautiful holiday that should be celebrated. And a Christmas tree is just fine, too. But what about those who don’t celebrate Christmas? Read on.

2. Include other holidays.
General rule for the holiday season: it’s about inclusion, not exclusion. Rather than excluding Christmas, recognize other holidays, such as Hanukkah and Kwanza. Consider a menorah and Kwanza basket along with the Christmas tree.

3. What holiday did you forget?
You don’t know what you don’t know. Profound. So, ask. Ask employees if there is a holiday that they would like to see included in the celebration (and that includes decorations).

4. What should you call your party?
“Holiday party” is the most inclusive term. Make your party more inclusive by having decorations and the music reflect diverse holidays.

Think also about your choice of decorations and songs. Those that are religious are more appropriate for religious celebrations (or for religious employers).

What if someone is offended by Bruce Springsteen’s “Santa Claus is Coming to Town”? May that be your biggest problem.

5. Should you serve alcohol?
Never serve it to minors. Make clear adults who get it for them will be fired. As for adults, take steps to minimize abuse, such as limiting drinks, providing lots of food or even making employees pay for alcohol and then donating the money to charity.

Even with restrictions, assume some people will abuse the alcohol you serve. Consider having cab vouchers ready for them without management knowing who the users are. This increases the likelihood that those who need vouchers will use them.

6. What about harassment?
December parties inevitably bring January claims about wandering hands, loose lips and… I’ll stop there. Remember, Jack Daniels is no defense.

This year, the EEOC has called out that alcohol is a risk factor when it comes to harassment, so focus proactively on this risk. Remind your employees that your harassment policy applies to the party. And make sure to name “designated watchers.”

Finally, if you are in management and you see or hear unacceptable comments or conduct, you must intervene. To see and ignore is to condone and increases your legal exposure.

7. What about the after-party?
To be blunt: no good comes from after-parties. Unless, you consider claims arising out of the after-party good. Make clear you are not sponsoring any after-party and do not allow employer money to be used for it. And never attend if you are in management. Attending is about as safe as walking on railroad tracks

8. How about gifts?
Here, too, anticipate the inappropriate. Remind employees that your harassment policy applies here, also. Stay away from the sexual or suggestive, such as gifts from Victoria’s Secret. Rule of thumb: if the gift is appropriate primarily for someone with whom you are intimate, don’t give it to an employee.

9. What about greetings?
It’s best to be general with your holiday greetings unless you know otherwise. The default should be “Happy Holidays.” But if you know someone is Christian, by all means wish that person a Merry Christmas. I know I do.

And I like when people wish me a “Happy Hanukkah” because they know I am Jewish. I am less thrilled if they are making assumptions. Make sure your employees don’t guess or assume anyone’s faith. Stereotypical assumptions here can cause myriad problems, including with customers.

10. Don’t forget the FLSA.
The Fair Labor Standards Act applies all year long, even during the holidays. So, don’t require or strongly suggest that employees attend parties outside of working hours. If you do, you may have to pay them to be miserable. Plus, if people don’t want to come, do you really want their misery there?

With all the difficulties that can accompany the holidays in the workplace, it’s a time to remember how lucky we are to be alive, and to love and to be loved. May peace be with you. Shalom.