According to Christine Porath, Associate Professor at Georgetown’s McDonough School of Business, 25% of employees surveyed in 1998 reported being treated rudely at work at least once a week. That number rose to 55% in 2011 and increased further to 62% in 2016. A second poll by Weber Shandwick, Powell Tate, and KRC Research showed that 70% of Americans think that political incivility has reached “crisis” levels.
Catherine Mattice, president of Civility Partners LLC, describes incivility as, “…any sort of rudeness, any sort of micro-aggression, anything you do that causes the other person to feel uncomfortable or unhappy.”
At the watercooler the talk is no longer about Game of Thrones’ episodes but rather discussions about the President’s latest policy decisions, immigration and a border wall. All of these topics have a chance of alienating/infuriating particular races, religions and nationalities. Not all incivility however originates with political disagreements. A survey Porath took two years ago showed that over half of workers behaved uncivilly because of work overload and, oddly, forty percent claimed they had no time to be nice, while a quarter behaved rudely because their bosses also behaved as such. Other factors contributing to the rise of rudeness are cultural clashes and an increase in narcissism among younger adults.
What is the price of workplace unrest? According to a study by Porath and Amir Erez, professor of management at the University of Florida, an individual’s cognitive skills dropped thirty percent after rude treatment. Harmful treatment may cause physical or mental health problems as well. The American Psychological Association estimates that workplace stress costs companies billions every year in employee turnover, absenteeism and lower productivity. A poll of 800 managers and employees conducted by Porath revealed that those treated disrespectfully at work intentionally decreased the quality of their work and the amount of time invested in it. In addition, workplace harassment may lead to expensive lawsuits.
Clearly incivility is a destructive force but how important is showing respect? According to Porath, respect shown by a leader is the most important key to producing commitment and engagement from employees. It outweighs showing recognition and appreciation, feedback and even opportunities for growth.
So listen, forget about President Trump for a moment! Game of Thrones will return in July. Once again we can talk about the war in Westeros rather than the war in the workplace.
The US Department of Labor recently criticized Google suggesting that the tech giant was routinely underpaying its female employees. Eileen Naughton, Google’s VP of people operations, refuted this claim, pointing out that Google conducts an annual gender blind pay equality analysis which reveals any pay discrepancies, and if any exist among any demographic group, their pay is adjusted accordingly.
Glassdoor, the job board and company review site, reviewed thousands of salaries as reported voluntarily by Google employees and found that women and men working similar jobs generally are paid the same. Why then all the hub bub? Because at Google women are paid 16% less than men overall. This data doesn’t make sense if Glassdoor’s data suggests that men and women are paid equally for the same work. This is where the confusion exists. Men are not being paid more than women within the same roles, they are paid more on average because they occupy more senior roles that command higher salaries. At Google for example, 52% of males worked as software engineers while only half as many women occupied that highly paid role.
Dr. Andrew Chamberlain, Glassdoor’s chief economist, said that men and women, for several reasons, are sorted into different jobs with different pay structures within the same company. This separation is what economists refer to as occupational segregation and is responsible for about 54% of the gender pay gap in the U.S.
Google is not paying women less than men for equal work but it does appear to be favoring men for more senior positions. Is this discrimination or is there a shortage of women from which to choose for the high paying roles such as software developer? Going further, are men better equipped to fill certain roles than women and vice versa? I have scoured the web and according to women, here are a few roles that men will never be better at than women and roles women will not be better at than men.
10 Jobs Men Will Never Be Able to Do Better Than Women
· Marketing and advertising
· Manager and supervisor
· Waiting tables
· Yoga/Fitness instructor
· Information clerk and customer care professional
· Gynecologist and obstetrician
· Nurse and professional caregiver
· Kindergarten and preschool teacher
10 Jobs Women Will Never Be Able to Do Better than Men
· Pro sports coach
· Plastic surgeon
· Police officer
· Construction worker
Clearly there are some roles such as mechanic, construction worker and firefighter that men seem more adept or at least more interested in doing while on the flip side more women are adept/interested in being teachers and caregivers. The physical design of men and women allows our genders to be better suited for some roles over others. Furthermore our upbringing often persuades men and women to pursue careers that might seem more masculine or feminine such as a male journalist covering business/finance while a female journalist might cover lifestyle/fashion.
The real question isn’t whether men and women are paid equally for doing the same job but whether women, by way of occupational segregation, find themselves in jobs that typically pay less? Even more troubling is a study out of Cornell University that found the pay for a particular occupation decreases as women take a more dominant role in it, suggesting that women’s efforts are not valued as highly as men’s. Once women take over, the occupation’s pay is seemingly downgraded.
In the end, no organization with half a brain is overtly paying a woman significantly less for doing the same work as a man. That is just asking for the type of scrutiny under which Google presently sweats. Organizations are simply sorting men into blue job baskets and women into pink job baskets and declaring all the work done by the blue basket workers to be more valuable and as such deserving of more pay. That is until women take it over.
Each year as many as 360,000 military men and women join the civilian workforce. Programs such as the Veteran Jobs Mission and the White House Joining Forces have helped reduce high unemployment numbers for veterans in recent years, however former military personnel still face several challenges when trying to find civilian work.
A stigma of mental illness surrounds many veterans today with the public grossly overestimating the number of those affected by issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Additionally, employers struggle with how to incorporate military skills into civilian jobs. Lastly, the military environment is culturally different than the civilian environment. Job candidates are encouraged on their resumes and in interviews to focus on individual achievements, however the military mentality focuses on teamwork and group achievements. Veterans, according to Melissa Stirling, director of military, campus and youth programs at Hilton Worldwide, are very humble and “not good at singing their own praises.”
Veterans offer numerous benefits! Below are but a few:
· They have many of the necessary skills required to fill talent shortages.
· They possess a strong work ethic.
· They have problem solving skills.
· They are disciplined.
· They are safety conscious.
· They are detail oriented.
· They are team players.
The U.S. Department of Labor provides a veterans hiring tool kit with tips on how to hire and retain veterans.
· Create a veterans hiring program and clearly outline your strategy and goals.
· Create a workplace accommodating to veterans by better understanding their culture and experience.
· Actively reach out to veterans and military spouses.
· Partner with groups that can help you locate capable veterans.
· Understand what you are permitted and not permitted to ask during an interview.
· Develop a mentorship program with a veteran as the mentor.
· Show appreciation for veterans’ service on Veterans Day and Memorial Day.
· Explain their training and the organizational chart.
According to a survey by Futurestep, eighty percent of organizations lack veterans recruiting programs despite the overall success in employing them. Organizations complaining that college graduates aren’t taught the necessary skills to compete in the workforce are neglecting a gold mine filled with candidates possessing ample and applicable skills. Following the tips above will help better acquaint employers with the challenges a very skilled segment of the workforce face, but also how to incorporate them into their organizations and take advantage of their skills.
A Startling Statistic About the Health of Unemployed Youth in the U.S.“Thriving” well-being is defined by Gallup and Healthways as possessing consistently good health and enough energy to get things done during the day. According to the Gallup-Healthways Global Well-Being Index, unemployed youth aged 15 to 29 enjoy slightly greater physical well-being compared with employed adults aged 50 and older. In 47 high income countries, young and older adults were basically tied in terms of increased well-being, but with the unemployed youth slightly edging out their older, employed counterparts, twenty-six (26%) to twenty-four percent (24%).
That young adults have more energy than older adults is not too surprising, however, unemployed youth in the U.S. have worse physical well-being than older employed workers. Only 23% of youth were thriving compared to 31% of older workers. In summary, those without jobs in the U.S. between the ages of 15-29 are in poorer health than those who are 50 + and have jobs and this stands in contrast to the rest of the world. Even more surprising is that only 14% of unemployed youth with college educations have thriving well-being while those with just a secondary education or primary education have double that at 27% and 28% respectively. Why is the U.S. an anomaly? Why is America’s unemployed youth less healthy than the rest of the world?
One suggestion for why unemployment affects Americans more is the stigma of being unemployed and this stigma could be more profound the higher the education levels attained. Spain, for example, has an unemployment rate among its youth near 40% while in the U.S. in July, the rate was only eleven percent. One might deduce that a higher unemployment rate would contribute to poorer health but the physical well-being of Spanish youth is higher than that of youth in the States. The hypothesis is that because so many Spanish youth are unemployed at the same time, they feel less stigmatized. They are able to share the burden of unemployment together.
A second theory is a lack of family support. A far greater number of unemployed youth living in lower and middle income economies worldwide, live with others, especially family, compared with many American youths who live alone. Physical well-being is often tied to emotional well-being and so an absence or the minimal provision of emotional support often provided by family, could adversely affect the health of American youth.
These statistics highlight a troublesome trend among America’s unemployed youth which should be monitored to ensure troublesome healthcare issues don’t arise especially among those with advanced education.
Beyond monitoring these healthcare issues we need to take a closer look at the source of the problem. Do Americans place a greater burden to succeed on themselves as compared with inhabitants of other nations? Those with higher educations, for example, have greater expectations placed on them to accomplish their goals and when they fall short, they appear to fall harder than most. What, if anything, can be done to provide greater support and well-being for those in their early stages of life so that they don’t end up on mom and dad’s couch?
What, if anything, could a hiring manager say negatively about a job candidate that was exceptionally achieving? How about a candidate exhibiting high levels of conscientiousness or sociability? Surely no objections could be made about a cooperative or accommodating candidate!
In their quest to find culturally fitting job candidates, recruiters and hiring managers often yield to the results of behavioral assessments which paint either a positive or negative picture about the candidates’ potentials. Of course specific traits are more favorable for certain roles than others. For example, a quiet, unsociable candidate may not be suited for a sales or customer service role but may be perfectly suited for a role such a programming. Some traits, however, are considered so universally positive that hiring managers may ignore the negative aspects of such traits that could manifest in their candidates after they are hired.
Achieving, for example, is a personality trait that suggests few drawbacks. High achievers are often sought after for being dedicated, ambitious, and dynamic. Yet, have you considered that an exceptionally achieving worker may also be unscrupulous, self-seeking and ruthless in their pursuit of their personal goals? A candidate who already likes to bend the rules and also exhibits the dark aspects of achieving could potentially be an organizational problem.
Candidates who are sociable/outgoing with warm, friendly demeanors may not often be turned away in favor of quiet, less sociable candidates, but every trait has a dark side. These candidates may be excessively talkative, boisterous, or even uninhibited to the point that they are disruptive and tactless.
Here are a few more outwardly positive personality characteristics and their dark alter egos.
· Confident – Arrogant, smug, patronizing
· Bold – Reckless, unprepared, brash
· Assertive – Overbearing, blunt, dominating, forceful. Combine this with confidence and boldness and you are liable to hire a Wolf of Wall Street type.
· Accommodating – Submissive, passive, pushover
· Tenacious – Obstinate, inflexible,
· Disciplined – Fussy, obsessive, dictatorial
· Decisive – Opinionated, impetuous, trigger happy
As shown above with assertive, many of these negative characteristics, when coupled with corresponding traits, may be amplified. A person with a high level of confidence and moderate levels of assertiveness and or boldness may not be an issue, however high levels of each may produce a toxic performer. My earlier post on this subject showed that parting ways with toxic employees, even if ranked in the top 1% for productivity, saved a company more in expense than what the company earned from the superstar’s production.
So, when you are looking to hire your next Jedi, be careful whether you are hiring an individual who wants to destroy the Death Star or who wants to build a Death Star. You may end up with a bold, confident Vader over a bold, confident Luke!
The U.S. is one of the richest countries in the world per capita, ranking 5th out of 133, yet according to the 2016 Social Progress Index, America ranks only 19th in terms of converting that economic success into improvements for its citizens.
This is similar to a professional sports team possessing a great win/loss record, highly paid executives and great attendance but having disgruntled fans and players. Why are the players and the fans so upset? To better understand this we must fully understand what exactly the Social Progress Index measures.
The Social Progress Index measures progress based on these three categories.
Basic Human Needs:
- Nutrition and basic medical care
- Water and sanitation
- Personal safety
Foundations of Wellbeing:
- Access to basic knowledge
- Access to information and communication
- Health and wellness
- Environmental quality
- Personal rights
- Personal freedom and choice
- Tolerance and inclusion
- Access to advanced education
As far as providing access to advanced education and shelter the U.S. is performing exceptionally well. Unfortunately, it performs poorly in several other categories such as health and wellness, access to basic knowledge, personal safety and nutrition & basic medical care. Additionally, wage growth, a measurement not calculated by the Social Progress Index, has been stagnant. Research by Indeed showed that only fifteen percent of workers were in jobs that see consistent wage growth keeping pace with inflation. Of these jobs, 50% were located in just nine states. Furthermore, training that would allow these growth jobs to be filled by U.S. workers is not readily available. Even worse, the situation isn’t improving. Last year the U.S. ranked 16th in Social Progress, slipping three spots to now sit just ahead of Slovenia.
Here we see that, despite companies getting richer and the economy strengthening, many of the opportunities and benefits Americans expect to enjoy as a result are not trickling down to them. The team is making plenty of money but the fans are overweight, out of breath, are getting mugged in the parking lot, can’t access WiFi on their phones and the players have seen little wage growth despite their exceptional win/loss record.
Honestly, aside from stagnant wage growth and the obesity epidemic, I didn’t feel we Americans were doing so poorly. Now it seems I and everyone else should be up in arms! Especially when considering that countries such as Costa Rica and Nepal over perform on Social Progress despite their low GDPs.
So what can we do about it? Just getting angry and acting out won’t get us anywhere. The first step is to identify our problems and then explore the solutions that are working elsewhere to see which ones might apply here in the USA. Only with focus and positive action can America begin to turn things around and address the issues so incensing us today.
In my colleague’s March blog post, “Productivity is on life support: Blame the Millennials and the Baby Boomers,” he pointed out that the annual growth rate of productivity from year to year between 2007 and 2015 was 60% lower than the year to year growth rate between 1947 and 1973. He contended that both the older, less productive baby boomers and the easily distracted millennials were to blame for the decrease in growth rate. Indeed many articles have been written about the Millennial “Me, Me, Me” generation.
Recently the Texas department of labor established an overtime rule that allows overtime pay for more salaried workers. The biggest complaint from business leaders on this ruling is that younger employees, millennials, don’t deserve to be paid overtime for the work they should have accomplished during their regular hours. As one complainant to the department of labor suggested, “The younger workers are often off task, engaged on social media, on the internet, texting on phones and other unproductive activities.”
Here we have further suggestions that Millennials are basically…well…. lazy. Below is an alleged quote from a prominent intellectual on the state of our youth which many would agree succinctly describes today’s young workers.
“The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table….and tyrannize their teachers.”
Sounds exactly like today’s youth but the quote above is allegedly from a disgruntled Socrates sometime prior to his death in 399 B.C nearly 2,500 years ago. I’m not convinced Socrates did indeed say this but regardless, the quote is old and suggests that Millennials aren’t the first generation to patent laziness and disrespect.
Bruce Pfau, the head of human resources for KPMG, spent years studying the differences between the wants and needs at work of Millennials and employees in other generations. He concluded that Millennials weren’t necessarily lazy or narcissistic but rather those are traits exhibited by young people which are corrected as the individual grows older.
Going back through history we see clearly that Millennials aren’t the first generation to be criticized by the media for their self-absorbed attitude. A 1907 article in the Atlantic Monthly on why marriages are failing declared that the “…cult of individualism…” was to blame. In the 70s, acclaimed author Tom Wolf wrote an article for New York magazine called, “The ME Decade. Reports on America’s New Great Awakening.” In it he said, “…The new alchemical dream is: changing one’s personality-remaking, remodeling, elevating and polishing one’s very self…and observing, studying and doting on it. (Me!)…” The Gen-Xers took a hit from Time magazine in 1990 when they dedicated their cover story to the generation who has “trouble making decisions” and whose attention span is as short as “one zap of a TV dial.”
Truly, younger people on average are more narcissistic, however the younger workers of the ‘oos aren’t necessarily more selfish than were 90s workers, and 90’s workers aren’t more self-absorbed than those in the 70’s and 80s. Sure, the distractions from decade to decade may be different. The generation once entranced by MTV now may look down its nose at the Facebook generation and in ten years the Facebook generation may haughtily judge generation Z for its addiction to virtual reality. Regardless however of what actually distracts them, the young people of every generation had a distraction over which the upper generations judged them for being lazy and self-absorbed.
So relax America. Our Millennials will grow out of it. In fact one day they will be writing articles about how bratty and entitled the young workers at their companies are behaving.
Internapalooza, an event I had not heard of until recently, is as its name suggests, a gathering of interns. More specifically the event hosts interns interested in working for Silicon Valley companies and from what I can tell, this July 11th, Internapalooza’s fifth annual event will take over AT&T Park in San Francisco with over 8,000 interns registered to attend. The event offers interns the chance to mingle with their peers, speak with executives from dozens of top tech companies such as Google, Facebook, Paypal, Dropbox, and Microsoft and even play games. According to the schedule the free event begins at 6:00 and ends at 10:00 but that is when the Intern After Party begins and continues until 1:00 am.
A viral story about the After Party is how I first heard of Internapalooza. (I’m a forty-something who lives on the East Coast so cut me some slack.) A Microsoft recruiter sent the following email to an intern which the intern’s roommate posted online.
“HEY BAE INTERN! <3
Hi! I am Kim, a Microsoft University Recruiter. My crew is coming down from our HQ in Seattle to hang with you and the crowd of the bay area interns at Internapalooza on 7/11.
BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, we’re throwing an exclusive after party the night of the event at our San Francisco office and you’re invited! There will be hella noms, lots of dranks, the best beats and just like last year, we’re breaking out the Yammer beer pong tables!
HELL YES TO GETTING LIT ON A MONDAY NIGHT.”
Okay so several things are wrong with this letter that Microsoft confirmed originated from them. One is the cringe worthy use of slang in an attempt to sound hip! “Hey Bae”? “Hella noms”? “Lots of dranks”? Not only is the jargon embarrassing but evidently it is also misused. “Dranks” which I’m assuming is meant to refer to drinks, is actually slang for codeine cough syrup that some young people ingest to get buzzed. I’m pretty sure Microsoft won’t be passing around Robitussin at their party. Perhaps the worst thing about this letter is the ending reference to getting “Lit” on a Monday night. While looking cool may enable Microsoft to appear more attractive to millennials or the upcoming Generation Z, getting drunk is hardly the vibe they should be promoting. The letter is embarrassingly funny but not catastrophic to Microsoft’s image.
Actually the email does not stray far from the laid back vibe presented for the whole event. Following is some verbiage from Internapalooza’s website, “Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The trouble makers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules and they have no respect for the status-quo.” As I reflect on Microsoft’s email and the statement on Internapalooza’s website, I wonder if the wrong message is being sent to millennials in an attempt to recruit them?
For years news articles and blogs have been written about how to manage (deal with) Millennials in the work place. Millennials have been stereotyped as “entitled, lazy, narcissistic and addicted to social media.” And yet events such as Internapalooza supposedly aren’t looking for the conformist millennial but rather the “crazy misfit” who breaks the rules. Do we want millennials who will show up for work on time, focused and ready to do their jobs, or do we want to stay up late downing brews with them on a Monday night?
Do you think a responsible manager will ever exclaim over a raucous game of late night beer pong with his subordinates, “HELL YES TO SHOWING UP LATE FOR WORK ON A TUESDAY MORNING!”? The answer is “no” and that’s your answer to the type of Millennial we really want.
Men often enjoy higher wages than women for doing the same work but research shows that fathers make more than non-fathers and, no surprise, more than mothers. Here are five reasons why dads are more successful.
1. Research by Cornell found that employers favored fathers over non-fathers and over mothers in the hiring process. Participants in the study considered fathers as more competent than mothers and childless men. Additionally, study participants were more lenient with fathers late to work.
2. Men with children earn six percent more while women earn four percent less for every child.
3. While it may seem logical that men with multiple children are more focused on family and are potentially less productive at work than their peers without children, extensive research shows that fathers of at least two children are more productive than fathers of one child and men without any.
4. Raising a family, according to studies, also prepares you for management. “If You’ve Raised Kids, You Can Manage Anything,” author Ann Crittenden writes. “Anyone who has learned how to comfort a troublesome toddler, soothe the feelings of a sullen teenager, or manage the complex challenges of a fractious household can just as readily smooth the boss’s ruffled feathers, handle crises, juggle several urgent matters at once, motivate the team, and survive the most Byzantine office intrigues.”
5. Fathers with children are more likely to accept promotions.
To summarize, fathers are more desirable to employers, earn more money, they are at least as equally productive as their childless counterparts, they have received management training at home and are more willing to take on promotions and the accompanying added responsibilities.
Mothers on the other hand are significantly disadvantaged when compared to their childless counterparts. While fathers typically make more money than men without children, the reverse is true for women. Mothers make less money than non-mothers. In fact according to research from 2001, the pay gap between mothers and non-mothers for women under 35 was larger than it was between women and men. Today, mothers are paid only 73 cents for every dollar fathers are paid. Also, as stated above, a mother’s salary decreases with each additional child while a man’s increases. Furthermore, managers who were visibly pregnant were viewed as less committed to their jobs, less competent, more irrational and less authoritative.
To summarize, mothers are less desirable to employers, more often viewed as incompetent and must work five extra months to be paid what working fathers are paid in one year.
Father’s day has just passed but for most working dads, every day is a father’s day!
How much work is too much work? Do workers reach a point when an excessive amount of work so fatigues them mentally and physically that their productivity takes a hit and their health declines?
The Draugiem Group conducted a study which tracked employees’ work habits. They discovered that employees that took short breaks of around fifteen minutes every hour were much more productive than those who tried to power through without stopping.
The brain operates in a high energy mode for about an hour and then in a low energy mode for fifteen to twenty minutes. For most, during these low energy periods, they are distracted and their productivity dips. By powering through this distracted period rather than taking a break and refueling, a lack of focus may continue even during the high energy period. The study found that those who took a break for fifteen minutes, and completely disengaged from work, could recommit 100% of their focus on their task once they re-engaged.
We see from a daily perspective how our minds and productivity are affected by too much continuous work but how about on a weekly basis? The Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, have researched the mental and physical effects of a forty plus hour work week. Below is a collection of their findings.
- Working more than 10 hours a day is associated with a 60 percent jump in risk of cardiovascular issues.
- Working more than 40 hours a week is associated with increased alcohol and tobacco consumption, as well as unhealthy weight gain in men and depression in women.
- Little productive work occurs after 50 hours per week.
- In companies with normal overtime, only 23 percent had absentee rates above 9 percent. In companies with high overtime, 54 percent had absentee rates above 9 percent.
- Individuals working 11 hours or more of overtime have an increased depression risk.
- Injury rates increase as work hours increase. Those who work 60 hours per week have a 23 percent higher injury hazard rate.
- In manufacturing industries, a 10 percent increase in overtime yields a 2.4 percent decrease in productivity.
- In white collar jobs, productivity declines by as much as 25 percent when workers put in 60 hours or more.
Working too much in one day and in one week can produce detrimental side effects to an individual’s productivity and physical well-being, but how about in a year?
The Bureau of Labor Statistics indicated that in 1976 more than 9 million Americans took vacation while in 2014 that number was down to only 7 million. According to research by the NY Times, taking a vacation every two years significantly reduces the risk of coronary heart disease as compared to taking a vacation once every six years. In addition the research suggests that workers are more productive after returning from vacation. Ernst & Young conducted a study of its employees and discovered their employees’ year-end performance ratings improved eight percent for each additional 10 hours of vacation they took and in addition those who took frequent vacations were less likely to leave the firm. Additional studies also suggest that frequent vacationers suffer less from depression and possess higher emotional levels.
For many taking a break whether it is every hour, every day, week or year, probably feels very counter- productive, but as you can see from the research above, taking one step back on the beach in your flip flops might enable you to take two steps forward in the office.