Managing the Social Butterfly in Your Office
Enjoying the work environment is important, but too much play and not enough work can cause conflict, distraction, and dissatisfaction. Research from the platform Udemy discovered that most employees like to work without distractions from their peers. Read this blog to learn how to manage the social butterfly in your workplace.
Although they might pretend to enjoy playing foosball, catching up on TV shows, and socializing in the office, most employees would prefer to just do their work without distractions, and keep their private lives private, according to new research from online learning platform Udemy. And it’s not just the “older” folks at the office. Udemy’s findings show that this wish is consistent among baby boomers, Gen X, millennials, and Gen Z alike.
So why aren’t more offices heads down and focused on work, if that’s what most of us want? The research shows that the more social minority tends to set the overall tone in the workplace. This difference in work style can cause interpersonal conflict, employee distraction, and dissatisfaction. While that might not sound like a big deal, unhappy, actively disengaged workers cost U.S. companies up to $550 billion per year.
Why we have trouble setting boundaries
Business leaders today are struggling to set boundaries for “appropriate” workplace behavior. Behavior that has traditionally been viewed as unprofessional — such as hugging, sharing deeply personal information, and using profanity — has become much more common.
Part of the problem is that managers often wrongly assume employees “just know” how to interact with each other at work. They don’t. This is partially due to changing employment trends, such as a decrease in entry-level positions, and fewer teens working summer jobs, which has resulted in less familiarity with workplace norms. Also, that old scapegoat, social media — and business messaging apps that mimic social media — may contribute to a perception that more informal communication styles are also OK at work. (Just do an internet search for “Slack etiquette”; the abundance of articles about how to communicate professionally indicate that this is a common challenge.)
Another factor contributing to why we have trouble with boundaries is a lack of self-awareness; that is, understanding how we come across to others. In fact, research shows that although 95% of people think they’re self-aware, only 10-15% actually are. When we’re not self-aware, we don’t realize that what we do, such as hanging around someone’s cubicle to chat, or using profanity, bothers or distracts others.
Despite this confluence of factors, many managers aren’t proactive about putting guidelines in place to set expectations of how employees should interact in a professional way. When there’s no clearly communicated norm about what constitutes “professional behavior” in the workplace — even if those norms are culturally or company specific — it’s difficult to call out if someone has crossed it.
Best practices for managing behavior and minimizing distractions
Defining which social behaviors are “too social” or distracting at work is not an exact science, and the right balance will be different in every workplace. However, in general, the Udemy survey found two distinct groups — across generations — with opinions around which behaviors were appropriate for the workplace. “Social butterfly” personalities were more likely to rate social behaviors, such as hugging, casual communication style, and gossiping more appropriate for work. “Worker bee” personalities, on the other hand, rated these same behaviors as less appropriate.
So how can a manager help the social and less social (at least at the office) work better together? Here are five best practices managers can implement to support change and open communication about expectations for interaction — and fewer distractions — at work.
Emphasize positive intent when giving feedback. When feedback is about something personal, like work style, rather than specific to task and performance outcomes, it can cause feelings of social rejection. Because most of us shy away from causing emotional distress in others, giving this sort of feedback is hard. A lens of “positive intent” can help you more positively frame feedback, for example to an employee who is extremely chatty, if you assume they are just behaving in a way that is natural for them, feels “right” to them, and is not intentionally trying to bother others. You might say something like: “I would like to give you some feedback about your communication style at work. You stop by my desk several times a day to talk to me about non-work topics, and it’s hard for me to stay focused on my work when you do that. To be clear, I feel confident that you’re not trying to bother me intentionally, and that you want to be friendly and inclusive. Did I get that right?”
Own the awkward. One way to initiate a discussion with employees about behavior that causes distraction or distress is to simply admit feeling uncomfortable: “This feels uncomfortable, but I wanted to talk about something that’s been on my mind and may not be on your radar.” Since you’re about to make the other person feel vulnerable, it can be effective to be a bit vulnerable yourself; for example: “It might sound silly to say ‘don’t hug me,’ but hugging my colleagues makes me uncomfortable — and affects my ability to maintain professional boundaries.”
Be specific. It’s important to articulate specifically and neutrally what the other person is doing that is affecting you or another member of the team. “You’re being too friendly at work” is an interpretation of behavior, not a behavior itself. Instead, try the more neutral: “I notice that on Mondays, you come into my office to tell me about your weekend without asking if I have a few minutes to chat. I’m usually trying to catch up on time-sensitive emails at that time. Would you be willing to ask if I have a few minutes free? I’d like to be able to give you my full attention — or let you know when I can give it to you.”
Encourage your employees to give each other feedback. The most effective way to change behavior is through feedback. However, most of us aren’t naturally great at giving or receiving it, so managers should practice and encourage a culture of regular feedback. Peer-to-peer feedback can be particularly impactful; research shows it can boost employee performance by as much as 14%. Furthermore, it’s a manager’s job to encourage employees to speak up to one another instead of complaining behind closed doors. And, managers should make an effort to recognize and reward those who give feedback well and consistently, as well as those who take the feedback without defensiveness.
Offer training. As mentioned above, more employees are coming on the job with little awareness about workplace norms around professional behavior. In addition, Gallup reports that only about 20% of managers have even basic people management skills. Fortunately, this soft skills gap can be filled with training in areas such as conflict management, effective communication, and emotional intelligence. To put training in place, incorporate specific trainings as part of new hire onboarding, and offer training courses as part of the performance evaluation outcomes for improvement.
Differences in work style can result in unwelcome distractions in the office. However, by supporting a culture of regular feedback, having brave, candid conversations, and providing training, the workplace can be more comfortable for everyone.
SOURCE: Riegel, D. (17 December 2019) "Managing the Social Butterfly in Your Office" (Web Blog Post). Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2019/12/managing-the-social-butterfly-in-your-office
When productivity increases, so do wages
Although productivity is the baseline of wages, deviations do occur. Productivity and pay can diverge for multiple reasons that are not included in the standard economic model. Read this blog post to learn more about pay versus productivity.
“Workers are delivering more, and they’re getting a lot less,” argued former Vice President Joe Biden in a speech at the Brookings Institution this summer. “There’s no correlation now between productivity and wages.”
Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic presidential rival, agrees. Her campaign website states that “wages have largely stagnated,” even though “worker productivity has risen steadily.”
The claim that productivity no longer drives wages is common enough on both the political left as well as the right. Proponents of this view argue that workers aren’t getting what they deserve based on their contributions to employers’ bottom lines.
Income inequality — the gap between the incomes of the rich and everyone else — supposedly demonstrates that the economy’s rewards are flowing, undeservedly, to those at the top. Populists take that conclusion even further, arguing that capitalism is fundamentally broken.
If that is what’s happening, it refutes textbook economics, which argues that wages are determined by productivity — by the amount of revenue workers generate for their employers. If a company paid a worker less than her productivity suggests she should be making, then she would go down the street and get a job that would pay her what she’s worth. Employers compete for workers, ensuring that workers’ wages are in line with their productivity.
This theory leaves out a lot, of course. Pay and productivity can diverge for any number of reasons not included in the standard economic model. Workers may not know how much revenue they create, or what other employment options are available to them. And changing jobs has its own costs, which in the real world gives employers some power over wages.
For critics of the current system, “some power” is a drastic understatement. In their telling, the decline of labor unions; erosion of the minimum wage; rise of non-compete and no-poaching agreements; inadequate enforcement of workplace standards and the like have dramatically reduced the bargaining power of workers. This has allowed businesses to drive down wages to the bare minimum job applicants and current workers will accept, pushing their pay below what their productivity suggests it should be.
Which view is correct? The latest piece of evidence on this question comes from Stanford University economist Edward P. Lazear, who analyzed data from advanced economies and confirms a strong link between pay and productivity.
Like several previous studies, Lazear’s research finds that low-, middle- and high-wage workers all benefit from growth in average productivity. This suggests that improvements in overall economic efficiency help all workers, not just the rich.
But Lazear argues, correctly, that a relevant issue is not whether workers benefit from changes in average productivity. Instead, if you want to know whether workers are being paid for their productivity, you should look at whether changes in the productivity of, say, low-wage workers affect the pay of that specific group.
It is infeasible to measure the productivity of individual workers. (How much revenue per hour of work do I generate for Bloomberg?) So Lazear examines productivity at the industry level, and compares industries that employ highly skilled workers with those that employ lesser-skilled ones.
Using data on the U.S. from 1989 through 2017, Lazear finds that productivity in industries dominated by higher-skilled workers increased by (roughly) 34 percent in that period. The wages of those workers grew by 26 percent. For industries requiring lesser skills, productivity increased by 20 percent, while wages grew by 24 percent.
In other words, pay increased faster than productivity in industries with lesser-skilled workers, and slower than productivity in industries with higher-skilled workers. Another striking implication of this finding is that “productivity inequality” — the gap in productivity between workers — may have grown faster than wage inequality over this period. While wage differences have increased over time, differences in productivity between groups of workers have increased even more.
The upshot: Slower wage growth for lesser-skilled workers is not prima facie evidence that employers have significant power over wages or that productivity doesn’t determine wages. Instead, Lazear concludes that productivity growth for high-skilled workers has increased rapidly enough (actually, more than enough) to account for growing inequality.
What caused this? Lazear points to two familiar explanations. Technological change disproportionately benefits the highly skilled, increasing their wages and productivity. And the globalization-led shift to a services economy has reduced the productivity of goods-producing, lesser-skilled workers.
Lazear also suggests that colleges may have improved more than high schools in their ability to impart skills to graduates. If so, industries dominated by college graduates would be expected to have had faster productivity growth over the last three decades. This would have caused both a wider dispersion in productivity across industries and in wages across groups of workers.
Such research doesn’t settle the debate, of course. Yet it does strengthen my view that wages are heavily influenced by market forces, even if they are not entirely determined by them. While productivity sets the baseline for wages, deviations from that baseline occur.
So contrary to what Biden, Warren and (many) others say, market forces, not power dynamics, are the principal driver of inequality.
This gets at the heart of the moral properties of the market economy. Capitalism produces unequal outcomes: The wages for some grow faster than for others. Those disparities are palatable if they are caused by differences in risk-taking, work effort and skills. They are tolerable if people are getting, in some sense, what they deserve. But if wages aren’t determined by productivity — if hard work doesn’t pay off and if workers aren’t receiving just returns — then something has gone badly wrong with the system.
Fortunately, the system doesn’t seem to be broken. It does need to be fine-tuned, however, with the goal of increasing the productivity of the lesser skilled. And we should be confident that if their productivity increases, so will their wages.
SOURCE: Bloomberg News (03 January 2020) "When productivity increases, so do wages" (Web Blog Post). Retrieved from https://www.employeebenefitadviser.com/articles/when-productivity-increases-so-do-wages
Employers should ‘double down’ on tech and benefits data analytics. Most still aren’t
Did you know: 53 percent of benefits leaders say the biggest challenge they face regarding effective benefits programs is gaining access to their data. Read this blog to learn why employers should 'double down' on technology.
Utilizing data to understand which health benefits will best work for employees is key to staying ahead of the curve, but just 18% of benefits managers believe their organization has the right tools to implement these programs.
That’s according to a new survey by Artemis Health, which found that while 88% of benefits leaders say data is somewhat to extremely important in designing and managing an effective benefits program, some 53% percent say access to data is their biggest challenge.
“Benefits analytics is the key to feeling confident in building better benefits programs for their organizations and their employees,” says Grant Gordon, CEO and co-founder of Artemis Health.
Obtaining this data is often the biggest challenge to understanding what companies should be offering and if it’s in line with the demands of their workforce, the survey found.
“When you look at data, you can make a hypothesis about what you should do, and if it's working, you double down. If it's not working, then you change tactics,” Gordon says. “But because data is so hard to get here, many benefit leaders don't have that reflex or muscle memory.”
Gordon spoke with Employee Benefit News about the role of data analytics in benefits planning and how companies can best utilize these tools.
Why is data such a critical part of benefits planning?
The top cited source of information that benefits leaders are relying on to define their benefits is employee feedback, and you absolutely have to have that. But if you take a step back from that, the role that I view data having is an objective way to look at what's actually happening with your employees and understand what the big strategic issues are. You may miss a silent group of people who really need help or an emerging trend that you need to address that you could have caught with data.
Most employers said that they didn't have the proper tools to use data effectively. Why do you think that is?
Just getting your hands on the data is a big challenge. You have to go the vendors that hold it, you have to give them assurances and sign legal documentation that you're going to use it appropriately and that you’ll keep it private, and that can take a long time. And then once you get the data, there's no really good data infrastructure in this industry to share data securely. So there's some orchestration challenges in shipping data around. You might get wrong data or you might get incomplete data. And then once you get it, it can be full of errors that need to be corrected. So before you even get to the starting gate, there's a big challenge.
Then you get to the next problem, which is that the data is very complex, and there's a lot of subject matter expertise that you need to have to understand it. And so in order to make this useful to a benefits person who's maybe not a deep, deep expert on medical, clinical knowledge or pharmaceuticals or certain programs, you need to simplify it so they can get to the trends. We can’t expect them to look at raw claims data and make anything of it. There’s a tooling challenge in getting the data and really making sense of it.
How can benefits managers bridge that knowledge gap?
Make sure that people get the healthcare and the benefits that they need. We saw [in the survey] that if they had more confidence in the moves that they were making, perhaps with data, they could get more things that are relevant to their employees into their hands faster, but it's just not the case today. So something needs to be addressed.
Get a data platform. I think some of the players that have been around for awhile, they do a fantastic job at data management and all those other things. I would look at something like Artemis or one of the newer companies, just to get a jumpstart on data-driven decisions on what's important and what's working and what's not. A lot of these companies work with advisers like consultants or brokers and many of them have inner resources internally. There are people who know the data really well who can really help you get more value out of that. So I would encourage them to make sure that they're asking specifically about getting data support from some of those advisers.
What does the future look like when it comes to utilizing technology and data in the benefit space?
If you look at other departments like marketing or finance or sales, they're all using data as a matter of course. It's a fabric that they weave the rest of what they do. The future of data here is making it easy for benefit leaders to understand all of those things and how to do those things and do them every day. When you're deciding what your major strategic initiatives should be for the year, being able to have that on tap in the data and actually being able to rely on that, and once you roll out a program or make a benefit change, measuring the impact of that.
SOURCE: Place, A. (12 December 2019) "Employers should ‘double down’ on tech and benefits data analytics. Most still aren’t" (Web Blog Post). Retrieved from https://www.employeebenefitadviser.com/news/employers-should-double-down-on-tech-and-benefits-data-analytics-most-still-arent
Reality check: The learning pro's primer on AR, VR tech
Virtual reality (VR) has created an opportunity to live in a realistic moment while also in a safe and controlled environment. Employers are now using this tool to train employees in a fun and authentic way. Read this blog post to learn how and what virtual reality is doing for employees.
Virtual reality and related technologies are gaining momentum in the employee learning field. Trainers love these tools for their ability to create an authentic learning experience in a safe, controlled environment and employees say they're on board, too.
But what exactly are these technologies? What do they do and how can you make use of them in your workplace? For many, understanding the tech is the first step toward implementation.
Alphabet soup
All together, these tools fall under the umbrella of XR — extended reality — according to Jack Makhlouf, Talespin's VP of sales and licensing, enterprise learning.
Within XR is VR and AR, virtual reality and augmented reality. To add to the confusion, AR is sometimes called MR, or mixed reality, Makhlouf told HR Dive in an email. Essentially, VR is a simulated experience that transports the user to a virtual environment that can be similar to or completely different from a real-world scenario. AR is an interactive experience where the objects that reside in the real world are enhanced by computer-generated information.
IRL application
VR and AR have many real-world applications, according to Ravin Jesuthasan, managing director, talent management at Willis Towers Watson. "VR and AR have gotten increasingly popular for training people on scenarios that don't occur often (e.g., a store manager being taught how to deal with an armed customer) and for training people on things that require significant practice (operating a complex piece of machinery)," he told HR Dive via email.
As a result, they're fast becoming a safety training must-have, especially for distributed workforces. These tools can be used to familiarize workers with a risky procedure or process before they attempt it in real life, Concept3D's CEO Gordon Boyes wrote to HR Dive. For location training, staff can learn safety procedures or the locations of exits, eyewash stations or fire extinguishers. "We use AR or mixed reality for remote locations," Boyes said, "and can overlay relevant data or information in its correct location without having someone needing to go to the remote site."
VR training scenarios also are particularly useful for practicing workplace conversations, Makhlouf noted. Workers can test run negotiations or customer interactions. "People generally don't get enough real-time practice engaging in difficult conversations so it takes much longer to build competency," he said; these tools can allow trainees to practice scenarios where soft skills are critical before being thrown into real-life situations.
Moreover, trainees are free to fail, get feedback, retry and improve with little judgment or consequence, Makhlouf said: "They are free to stretch their skills and gain a higher level of learning — that is the real power of this technology."
The ROI
While costly, Jesuthasan said, VR and AR have major benefits. For one, the speed of training on highly complex topics is unprecedented.
Additionally, the tech boosts knowledge retention because people are visual learners, Boyes said. "An employee's ability to learn and retain information is greatly enhanced with the addition of immersive media." The self-directed nature of the training can result in a cost savings, too, Boyes added.
XR training programs tend to be scalable as well, Makhlouf said, which can make it more cost-efficient. But ultimately, employees seem to like them, and that's perhaps the best return on investment an employer could hope for. After all, if you can't get employees to complete training, there's no ROI at all. "[W]e believe training should effective, cost-efficient, and measurable," Markhlouf said, "but most of all, fun.”
SOURCE: O'Donnell, R. (17 December 2019) "Reality check: The learning pro's primer on AR, VR tech" (Web Blog Post). Retrieved from https://www.hrdive.com/news/reality-check-the-learning-pros-primer-on-ar-vr-tech/568730/
Employers ban vaping as its reputation goes up in smoke
Vaping and e-cigarettes are being used to cut out, cut back or completely quit traditional tobacco. With vaping becoming more common in the workplace, employers are realizing that the same policies in effect for traditional cigarettes are not in effect for e-cigarettes. Read this blog post to learn why employers are implementing vaping policies.
Reports on the health concerns associated with vaping and e-cigarettes are mixed. While some say the products are less harmful than traditional cigarettes, others link them to serious health consequences such as lung disease, noted Julie Stich, vice president of content at the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans (IFEBP).
Given the popularity and risk associated with vaping, it's made an impact on employers. "Vaping and the use of e-cigarettes pose many of the same risks of cigarette smoking to employees and the workplace," Haynes and Boone Partner Jason Habinsky said in an email to HR Dive. What's more, workers who choose to use e-cigarette products can put those who share their space at risk as well.
A lack of vaping policies
Vaping has been around for a little while now, said attorney Marissa Mastroianni, an associate at Cole Schotz, but a lot of employers still haven't created policies.
Stich concurred, noting that only 46% of U.S. employers in a recent IFEBP wellness survey reported having a vaping policy, with a "large chunk" of respondents say they weren't sure if they did.
But this may soon change. A recent increase in vaping-related illnesses, combined with a warning from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has driven some employers to take a second look at their policies, said Kerry Sylvester, director of product management, wellbeing solutions at HealthAdvocate. In the absence of specific vaping-related laws, company culture and priorities are driving policy. "Many larger employers including Target and Wal-Mart are leading the way by including vaping in their workplace tobacco policies, and many smaller employers are following their example," she said.
Mastroianni concurred: "There is a trend that employers have been adding vaping to their no-smoking policies," she said. This is a good thing, according to Habinsky. "[I]t is important that employers review all policies which regulate smoking or other health and safety considerations and modify the scope of such policies to include vaping and e-cigarettes," he said.
For employers that lack policies putting boundaries on vaping, the first step is to consider any applicable local laws, Mastroianni said. New York and New Jersey, for example, have adopted vaping laws relating to smoke-free workplaces and smoking in public areas. "If a law like that exists in your jurisdiction, you need to comply," said Mastroianni.
Stich noted that laws in some areas may treat vaping differently than smoking, and employers need to be aware of this (she cited a list of current vaping laws here). Additionally, employers will need to note that vaping and e-cigarette use "may also be prohibited in certain industries and work environments where health and safety may be at risk," said Habinsky.
Competing priorities
When no specific law applies, however, employers have more flexibility. This is the point at which priorities begin to compete.
"Vaping has been viewed as a substitute for traditional tobacco use both for recreational users as well as by individuals who are trying to cut back or quit smoking," said Sylvester, speaking to HR Dive via email. "Employers want to support employees who are trying to make positive changes in their health by quitting smoking, but must consider the needs of their entire workforce."
Employees who want to sit at their desks and vape may say they're not bothering co-workers, but this is not necessarily true, said Stich. "There can be a residual odor and co-workers can find this annoying."
Annoyance is not the only thing e-cigarette users may inflict on coworkers. "Vaping can pose challenges for individuals with scent sensitivities, not to mention the concerns related to secondhand exposure to vaping aerosol," said Sylvester. And, unlike traditional cigarettes, "[a]n e-cigarette can also malfunction or even explode, causing harm to individuals in the workplace," said Habinsky.
Productivity concerns also factor in. "[E]mployers must also consider the positive or negative impacts on productivity by allowing employees to take vaping breaks away from their workspace versus vaping at their desks," said Sylvester.
Once employers have updated or created vaping policies, it's up to them to make sure employees know about the changes. "Employers should also update any related employee training to include a discussion of such prohibitions," said Habinsky. "Employers should also examine any wellness policies and employee education to ensure the inclusion of such use."
A call employers need to make
"While supporting employees who want to quit tobacco is a priority, employers must decide if allowing the use of nicotine products that are not [Food and Drug Administration-]approved is beneficial in the short and long term," said Sylvester. It's worth noting that "the jury is still out" as to whether vaping and e-cigarettes actually do help people stop smoking regular cigarettes, Stich said.
"It's kind of tough at the moment," said Mastroianni, and it's an area with a lot of nuance. "On the one hand, you want clear air for employees to work and to protect against inhaling secondhand smoke. On the other hand, a lot of people do use vaping and e-cigarettes as a way to stop smoking actual cigarettes."
Ultimately, said Mastroianni, "employers need to make a judgment call and decide, 'what's better for us?'"
SOURCE: Carsen, J. (13 December 2019) "Employers ban vaping as its reputation goes up in smoke" (Web Blog Post). Retrieved from https://www.hrdive.com/news/employers-ban-vaping-as-its-reputation-goes-up-in-smoke/568941/
9 things HR needs to know to curb bullying at work
Bullying doesn't stop after middle school, high school or college. A national survey by the Workplace Bullying Institute found that 19 percent of employees are bullied. Read this blog post to learn more about bullying in the workplace.
When people think of bullying, they may envision the stereotypical middle school setting, where a mild-mannered teen is shoved into a locker, ostracized or, nowadays, trolled on social media. But bullying doesn't stop after middle school; it continues into adulthood and shows up in the workplace on a disturbingly frequent basis.
According to the Workplace Bullying Institute's (WBI) 2017 National Survey, 19% of U.S. employees are bullied, and another 19% witness it. All told, the survey says that 60.3 million Americans are affected by this behavior in the workplace.
WBI's definition of workplace bullying is "repeated, health-harming mistreatment of one or more persons by one or more perpetrators." It includes threats, humiliation, intimidation, work sabotage and verbal abuse, WBI Director Gary Namie told HR Dive.
Not illegal — just expensive
Bullying and harassment share similar traits of severe or pervasive and unwelcome conduct that creates a hostile work environment. Although harassment is against the law, bullying is not, Heather Becker, partner at Laner Muchin, told HR Dive in an email. "The difference would be that bullying can happen to anyone for any reason. Technically, unlawful harassment is conduct that occurs because of an individual's protected characteristic, such as gender, race, national origin," she said. Bills that would prohibit workplace bullying have been introduced in at least 30 states but none have been made law.
But even if bullying is not unlawful, it comes with a cost. Individuals who are the targets of repeated abusive behaviors can begin to have physical and psychological issues related to high anxiety, depression and stress, Kim Shambrook, vice president, Safety Education, Training and Services for the National Safety Council, told HR Dive.
"As we as a country and society look at total wellness, it's definitely becoming a big issue. People who experience stress at work have other symptoms. They can't sleep; don't want to go to work. There are all sorts of residual effects," she said.
Those effects can impact the employer, she explained. Whether an employee is directly affected or even affected as a witness, the damage can decrease workplace safety and employee morale and increase absenteeism and turnover, Shambrook said.
What HR needs to know
1. Bullying is complicated — even for the aggressor
There's a continuum of abrasive behavior, Linda Beitz, owner of Solutions Through Dialogue, told HR Dive. At one end of the spectrum are people who are slightly annoying but don't cause stress to others. At the far end of the continuum are the rare people with aberrant behavior. Most issues are found in people in the middle of the spectrum, who cause organizational stress to co-workers, sufficient to interrupt organizational functioning, she said.
"They're people who have a desire to achieve results and think that they are motivating people, utilizing abrasive behaviors," Beitz said. She suggested using people-first language of a "human being with abrasive behaviors" instead of the word "bully," which perpetuates labeling and name-calling. But that doesn't mean the behaviors should be tolerated, she added.
2. A bullying situation says more about the organization than it does the individuals
Certain company cultures are ripe for bullying, Namie said. "It's the establishment of a competitive environment, but not healthy competition, where you could end up with a win-win. We set up a zero-sum competitive world. [For example,] 'I must obliterate you in order for me to enjoy success,'" he explained. In this winner-takes-all scenario, the majority who don't win are demoralized while the single individual is artificially pumped up, he said.
3. A lack of consequences reinforces bullying
When the bully also is a valued employee, there is a systematic, historical problem of organizational leaders failing to address behavior, mainly out of fear and conflict avoidance, Namie said. When a person with aggressive behavior is promoted and praised, neither they nor the organization demonstrates concern for the wellbeing of the other employees, he said.
4. HR cannot stop bullying
This change must come from the top. HR can ensure policies and procedures are established and communicated, but consistently implementing the policies, regardless of the employees involved, requires action from senior leadership, Namie said. HR, for its part, can try to convince senior leaders that the financial cost of bullying — from payouts, absenteeism, presenteeism, health issues, medical expenses, workers' compensation, safety, turnover and productivity — are not worth ignoring abusive behavior.
5. Any reports of bullying — no matter how seemingly minor, must be investigated
Don't turn a blind eye, Shambrook said. "Any report of bullying should be taken seriously." This includes conducting a thorough investigation. "If someone is found to be engaging [in aggressive behavior], there has to be a consequence, and it has to be spelled out in the policy."
6. Everyone needs training to recognize and address bullying
Front-line supervisors, senior leaders and the employee population need to know what to do when they experience or witness bullying. Leaders need to be trained in emotional intelligence, Beitz said; encourage people to speak up to create a healthier organization, Shambrook added, and ensure employees know where to turn to do so.
7. Improvement is possible
Abrasive employees who are motivated to change can develop new skills, Beitz said. If they are open to feedback and the recognition that their behavior isn't useful — and that there are negative consequences for continuing that behavior — they may be willing to learn new methods. "It's a four-step process: First, waking them up to how they are showing up as a leader or manager. Second, helping them to see the impact that their behavior is having on others. Third, equipping them with an understanding of what might be driving their behavior, and developing their capacity to accurately read the emotions that others are feeling as a result of their actions. And, fourth, helping them to develop new strategies to get the results they are looking for without causing distress in co-workers and the organization," she said.
8. Targets need support
Unfortunately, most people who are targeted (65%, according to WBI) lose their jobs through no fault of their own, Namie said. They might be fired, reassigned or (somewhat) voluntarily resign. Providing support for the person targeted is critical, Shambrook added. It is vital to encourage the person to use available employee assistance programs, keep them updated on progress, let them know when the issue is resolved and check on them afterward.
9. The "eggshell skull" rule applies
Do not ignore a complaint under the assumption that an employee is overly sensitive. Even if abusive behavior damages one person but not others, the organization is still responsible for that individual who is affected. The eggshell skull rule says that damages aren't any less because one person may be more susceptible to injury.
Workplace bullying can be entrenched in a culture, and it takes a full-scale approach to stop it, but ignoring or minimizing the behaviors or delaying consequences is detrimental to everyone in the organization.
"You don't pay attention to it until it touches your life," Namie said, "but we can't wait until everyone has been personally bullied in order to make it stop."
SOURCE: DeLoatch, P. (7 October 2019) "9 things HR needs to know to curb bullying at work" (Web Blog Post). Retrieved from https://www.hrdive.com/news/9-things-hr-needs-to-know-to-curb-bullying-at-work/563639/
DOL updates FLSA regular rate rule
With the New Year right around the corner, it's important to know what rules are being updated. The U.S. Department of Labor has updated the "regular rate of pay" to calculate overtime pay. This standard is used to calculate overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Read this blog post for more information on this final rule.
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has issued a final rule updating the "regular rate of pay" standard used to calculate overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), according to a notice to be published in the Federal Register Dec. 13.
In the rule, DOL clarifies when certain employer benefits may be excluded when calculating overtime pay for a non-exempt employee, including bona fide meal periods, reimbursements, certain benefit plan contributions, state and local scheduling law payments and more. The rule also clarifies how employers may determine whether a bonus is discretionary or nondiscretionary.
The rule will take effect Jan. 12, 2020.
The rule will likely result in employers taking a closer look at their benefits packages, Susan Harthill, partner at Morgan Lewis, told HR Dive in an emailed statement.
A number of employer advocates that submitted comments on DOL’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), including the Society for Human Resource Management, supported excluding employee benefits like gym memberships, tuition assistance and adoption and surrogacy services from regular rate calculations. Gym memberships and tuition assistance are generally excludable, according to DOL, but the agency said only some forms of adoption assistance would be excludable and that most surrogacy assistance payments would not be.
Employers also inquired about public transportation and childcare subsidies. In the final rule, DOL said public transportation benefits would not be excludable, noting that the agency "has long acknowledged that employer-provided parking spaces are excludable from the regular rate but commuter subsidies are not." But it did add clarifying language around childcare, saying that while "routinely-provided childcare" must be included in the regular rate, emergency childcare services — if those services are not provided as compensation for hours of employment and are not tied to the quantity or quality of work performed — may be excluded.
DOL also offered additional details about its treatment of tuition reimbursement and education-related benefits. As it stated in the NPRM, the agency said that as long as tuition programs are offered to employees regardless of hours worked or services rendered are "contingent merely on one’s being an employee," such programs qualify as "other similar payments" excludable from the regular rate. This includes payment for an employee's current coursework, online coursework, payment for an employee’s family member’s tuition and certain student-loan repayment plans, DOL said.
HR teams should respond by performing audits of the pay codes for benefits that would be impacted, Tammy McCutchen, shareholder at Littler Mendelson, told HR Dive in an interview: "This is a good time to get your calculations correct." McCutchen suggested that employers conduct audits first before deciding whether to expand benefits options in light of the rule. She added that it's an employer's responsibility to notify payroll providers of any changes to exemptions.
Employers also will need to check state laws and consult with counsel ahead of implementing changes to employees' regular rates, as those laws may differ from DOL's new rule, Harthill said. Moreover, "[t]his is an interpretive rule and it remains to be seen whether courts will defer to DOL's interpretation of the rule or if any resultant exclusions are challenged," she added.
SOURCE: Golden, R. (12 December 2019) "DOL updates FLSA regular rate rule" (Web Blog Post). Retrieved from https://www.hrdive.com/news/dol-updates-flsa-regular-rate-rule/568954/
Labor Department Issues Final Rule on Calculating 'Regular Rate' of Pay
The New Year is bringing changes to the current "regular rate" of pay definition. Recently, the U.S. Department of Labor updated the FLSA definition of the regular rate of pay. The final ruling will take effect on January 15, 2020, and will provide modernized regulations for employers. Read this blog to learn more.
Employers now have more clarity and flexibility about which perks they can include in workers' "regular rate" of pay, which is used to calculate overtime premiums under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced a final rule that will take effect Jan. 15, 2020.
This is the first time in more than 50 years that the DOL has updated the FLSA definition of the regular rate of pay. Here's how the new law will impact employers.
Reduced Litigation Risk
Currently, the regular rate includes hourly wages and salaries for nonexempt workers, most bonuses, shift differentials, on-call pay and commissions. It excludes health insurance, paid leave, holiday and other discretionary bonuses, and certain gifts.
Many employers weren't sure, however, if certain perks had to be included in the regular rate of pay. So instead of risking costly lawsuits, some employers were choosing not to offer competitive benefits.
Employers were concerned that, for example, if they offered gym memberships to employees, they would have to add the cost to the regular-rate calculation, explained Kathleen Caminiti, an attorney with Fisher Phillips in Murray Hill, N.J., and New York City. The new rule says that gym membership fees and other similar benefits don't have to be included.
The new rule is intended to reduce the risk of litigation and enable employers to provide benefits without fearing that "no good deed goes unpunished," Caminiti said.
The final rule largely tracks the proposed rule, noted Susan Harthill, an attorney with Morgan Lewis in Washington, D.C. But it includes more clarifying examples and provides additional insight into the DOL's views on specific benefits, she said.
This rule was relatively uncontroversial, said Tammy McCutchen, an attorney with Littler in Washington, D.C. She noted that only a few employee and union groups commented against the rule, and those comments addressed very specific points.
"Employees like these benefits, too," she said.
Clarifications
The rule clarifies that employers may exclude the following perks from the regular-rate calculation:
- Parking benefits, wellness programs, onsite specialist treatments, gym access and fitness classes, employee discounts on retail goods and services, certain tuition benefits, and adoption assistance.
- Unused paid leave, including paid sick leave and paid time off.
- Certain penalties employers must pay under state and local scheduling laws.
- Business expense reimbursement for items such as cellphone plans, credentialing exam fees, organization membership dues and travel expenses that don't exceed the maximum travel reimbursement under the Federal Travel Regulation system or the optional IRS substantiation amounts for certain travel expenses.
- Certain sign-on and longevity bonuses.
- Complimentary office coffee and snacks.
- Discretionary bonuses (the DOL noted that the label given to a bonus doesn't determine whether it is discretionary).
- Contributions to benefit plans for accidents, unemployment, legal services and other events that could cause a financial hardship or expense in the future.
"Unlike the upcoming changes to the FLSA white-collar regulations, which will have the force of law, this final rule is predominately interpretative in nature," said Joshua Nadreau, an attorney with Fisher Phillips in Boston. "Nevertheless, you should review these changes carefully to determine whether any of the clarifications are applicable to your workforce."
Employers who follow the rule can show that they made a good-faith effort to comply with the FLSA.
Paying Overtime Premiums
Under the FLSA, nonexempt employees generally must be paid 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked beyond 40 in a week. But the regular rate includes more than just an employee's base hourly wage. Employers must consider "all remuneration for employment paid to, or on behalf of, the employee," except for specific categories that are excluded from the calculation, such as:
- Discretionary bonuses.
- Payments made when no work is performed, such as vacation or holiday pay.
- Gifts.
- Irrevocable benefits payments.
- Payments for traveling expenses.
- Premium payments for work performed outside an employee's regular work hours.
- Extra compensation paid according to a private agreement or collective bargaining.
- Income derived from grants or options.
The final rule updated and modernized the items that can be excluded from the calculation, Caminiti said. For example, the prior regulation referenced only holiday and vacation time, whereas the new rule recognizes that many employers lump together paid time off. The rule clarifies that all paid time off will be treated consistently as to whether it should be included in the regular rate.
The DOL eliminated some restrictions on "call-back" and similar payments but maintained that they can't be excluded from an employee's regular rate if they are prearranged.
The rule also addresses meal breaks, scheduling penalties, massage therapy and wellness programs.
"Some of these benefits didn't exist even a decade ago," McCutchen noted.
Harthill observed that the line between discretionary and nondiscretionary bonuses has created uncertainty and litigation. So the final rule's text and preamble give more examples and explanations about certain bonuses in response to commenters' requests. For example, the final rule provides more clarity about sign-on and longevity bonuses, but the DOL declined to specifically address other types of bonuses commenters asked about.
Action Items
"Now is the time for a regular-rate audit," McCutchen said. Compensation specialists should gather a list of all the earnings codes they're currently using for nonexempt employees, note each one they are including in the regular rate and compare that with the new rule to see if changes need to be made.
Most employers presently are not including paid sick time, tuition reimbursement and other perks in the regular-rate calculation, McCutchen noted, and DOL has confirmed the practice.
Now is also a good time for employers to decide if they want to start providing certain perks that are popular with employees, she said.
Harthill noted that it is important for employers to check whether the relevant state law tracks or departs from the federal law, because state laws might have stricter rules about overtime calculations.
SOURCE: Nagele-Piazza, L. (12 December 2019) "Labor Department Issues Final Rule on Calculating 'Regular Rate' of Pay" (Web Blog Post). Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/Pages/Labor-Department-Issues-Final-Rule-on-Calculating-Regular-Rate-of-Pay-.aspx
Tech tools underused for workplace engagement: survey
Did you know: Only 45 percent of employers use technology to improve employee engagement, according to a survey of HR professionals. Read the following blog post to learn more about using technology to enhance workplace engagement.
Just 45% of employers are using technology to improve employee engagement, according to a new survey of thousands of HR professionals in organizations of varying sizes.
The research finding comes from the Next Concept Human Resource Association (NCHRA) and Waggl, a real-time engagement platform. HR tech industry professionals weighed in on the topic at the HR TechXpo 2019 and others as part of the latest “Voice of the Workplace” pulse survey.
Of those respondents, 92% said they would like to create a strong internal culture that affects results. In addition, 81% believed that investing in people-focused programs and skills such as onboarding, performance and employee engagement would help increase revenues and profit margins.
Lisa Hickey, VP of professional development at NCHRA, was “a bit surprised” that only 45% of her group’s members reported that their organizations are using technology to improve employee engagement in the face of business volatility and a tight labor market.
NCHRA and Waggl, both based in the San Francisco Bay Area, also distilled into a ranked list crowdsourced responses to a survey question about social media and gamification platforms as tools to increase employee engagement.
Several caveats were expressed. One HR leader, for example, cautioned that they need to be tied to the type of company and demographics, as well as the extent to which employees are willing to embrace change. Another respondent said it’s important that gamification not be “viewed as a nuisance and a distraction from accomplishing job tasks.”
The bottom line is that giving employees an opportunity to help shape their organization’s culture, experience, vision and execution enables them to “feel more connected to the workplace and empowered to drive change,” according to Alex Kinnebrew, chief marketing officer and head of growth strategy for Waggl.
Benefit brokers and advisers can play a critical role in helping their employer clients bridge the technology gap when it comes to improving employee engagement, Hickey believes. “From designing an offering that represents company goals to securing the best technology to administer the program, brokers are guiding you every step of the way and also helping utilize technology beyond benefits administration that delivers more services and solutions for the company,” she says.
Founded in 1960, NCHRA is the nation’s second-largest HR association — serving more than 30,000 professionals in 23 states and several countries and showcasing more than 100 annual educational events.
Waggl’s Employee Voice platform examines critical business topics that include culture, experience, vision and execution. The company’s management team includes executives from Glassdoor, SuccessFactors and Coupa. Customers include Paychex, eBay, City Electric Supply, UCHealth, American Public Media and Freddie Mac.
SOURCE: Shutan, B. (4 December 2019) "Tech tools underused for workplace engagement: survey" (Web Blog Post). Retrieved from https://www.benefitnews.com/news/tech-tools-underused-for-workplace-engagement-survey
6 steps to enhance your recruiting strategy
According to recent data from PwC, more and more potential employees are turning down job offers because of bad recruitment experiences. Often, when job candidates have a poor experience while applying for a job, they share the details of their encounter with friends, family and social media. Read this blog post for six steps employers can use to enhance their recruitment strategy.
Employers may be contributing to their organization’s bad reputation without even knowing it during the recruiting process
A strong labor market is presenting employees with more options, allowing them to weigh potential employers against each other, and eliminating the need to accept the first offer they get. Unique and inventive recruiting strategies are vital in attracting the right talent to your organization, but more potential employees are turning down job offers because of bad recruiting experiences, according to data from PwC.
Employers can develop some bad habits when it comes to recruiting, like dragging out the process and even ghosting candidates. When potential employees have a poor experience applying for a job with a company, they are going to share the details of that encounter with friends, family and the world at large thanks to social media.
“Job seekers today expect the hiring process to be streamlined, efficient and customized to their personal preferences, with effortless technology and sincere human interactions,” says Bhushan Sethi, a workforce strategy leader at PwC.
However, very few organizations are providing this experience, according to the PwC survey of 10,000 job seekers. Not only can a bad recruiting experience drive candidates away, it can also create lasting damage to an organization’s reputation as an employer.
“Leaders have an opportunity to gain an edge in the battle for talent by delivering a superior recruiting experience to every candidate, even those who don’t receive an offer,” Sethi says.
But there are ways to make a candidate’s recruiting experience more positive, even if they don’t ultimately get an offer. Here are six steps organizations can take to deliver a “first-rate” recruiting experience to potential candidates.
Find a balance between tech and human interaction
The human interactions candidates experience during the recruitment process makes a stronger impression than any digital experience, the survey shows. “Candidates want positive, direct human interaction throughout the recruiting process, whether that’s in person, over the phone or via email,” Sethi says. “Two-thirds of candidates said personalized initial outreach makes them more likely to apply for a position.”
Technology does have an important role to play in the recruiting process. However, recruiting technology is typically designed with the enterprise, not the candidate, in mind, Sethi says. Employers should look to utilize technology that streamlines routine tasks or makes the hiring process easier for job applicants. About 44% of those surveyed by PwC say they’re open to using automation and technology options for routine touchpoints and to get information during the recruiting process. Another 65% said they would like if an organization had an application dashboard so they could track their progress.
Communicate often and keep the process quick
More than half of job seekers (56%) said they would discourage someone else from applying for a job with a company where they had a bad recruiting experience, according to PwC data. A majority of job seekers (92%) said they’ve experienced poor recruiting practices at some point in their career. Candidates pointed out the two most frustrating behaviors by recruiters: dragging out the process by more than a month and recruiters who withdraw communication with no explanation.
“These practices are rampant: 61% of candidates said they’ve simply stopped hearing from an organization during the hiring process,” Sethi says. “And 67% gave up pursuing a role because the recruiting process took too long.”
Ask for social media details
About 50% of job seekers said they’d be willing to share their social media data with potential employers if it helps to determine a better job and organizational fit. Checking out a potential employee’s social media allows HR to understand more about the candidate. But candidates are only willing to share their social media data if the right privacy measures are in place. Recruiters can gain candidate’s trust by being transparent. About 78% of those surveyed by PwC said they expect the recruiting process to be clear on how personal data is used. About 77% of candidates said they wouldn’t apply for a job if they felt their privacy and information wasn’t protected.
Highlight the rewards potential employees most desire
Upskilling, personal flexibility and inclusion are three key aspects of workplace culture that have become more desirable among candidates than salary, according to PWC. Additionally, candidates are willing to give up 11.7% of their salary for more flexibility and training.
Give candidates a way to experience the company’s culture first hand
Today’s candidates are looking for more than a job, the PwC survey notes. They want an employee experience that provides a sense of purpose and pride.
“Culture is so meaningful that 33% of C-suite-level candidates said they’d take a pay cut to work for a mission-driven company that aligns with their ideals,” Sethi says.
It can be challenging for recruiters to provide an accurate sense of a company’s culture. Recruiters can help candidates experience this firsthand by holding networking and other social events.
Always be mindful of your reputation
When candidates have a bad recruiting experience it does more damage than recruiters realize. “It can cause lasting reputational harm and even hurt your chances of hiring the workers who are hardest to find,” Sethi says.
Almost half of candidates (49%) working in high-demand sectors like tech, banking and energy say they would be more likely to turn down a job due to a bad recruiting experience. Of those surveyed by PwC 71% say working for a company with a good reputation as an employer is more important than working for a well-known customer brand.
“That’s good news for small brands jockeying for talent with big-name competitors,” Sethi says. “You can gain an edge by cultivating and promoting a strong, positive reputation. It’s also a call to action for bigger brands: you can’t rely on name alone to attract talent.”
SOURCE: Schiavo, A. (9 December 2019) "6 steps to enhance your recruiting strategy" (Web Blog Post). Retrieved from 6 steps to enhance your recruiting strategy