Dec. 15, 2017 "When HR is part of the problem": Today I found this article by Noam Scheiber and Julie Creswell in the Globe and Mail. This is a good article, but I got angry reading about Emery Lindsley's bad experience when HR didn't really help her:
The executive then began commenting on the appearance of a woman on Lindsley's staff, even asking if the staff member had a steady relationship with her boyfriend, Lindsley recalled.
As she had been taught at the company's annual – and mandatory – anti-harassment training, Lindsley reported the executive's actions to her human resources department.
"I went to HR and said, 'you need to do something','' said Lindsley, who made the allegations in a lawsuit she filed against Omni Hotels & Resorts and its parent company in October. "I was embarrassed and humiliated about how he had treated me in front of my team.
"But she ignored me,'' Lindsley said in an interview. "She didn't even write it down. She didn't seem to take it seriously at all."
Lindsley's experience illustrates the complicated role that human resources departments play in harassment cases. The recent outpouring of complaints from women about mistreatment in the workplace has included numerous accounts of being ignored, stymied or retaliated against by human resources units – accounts that portray them as part of the problem, not the solution.
The lack of trust manifests itself as a self-perpetuating quandary: women are hesitant to approach human resources departments and those departments cite the absence of complaints as proof of a respectful workplace.
A 2016 study by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported that of all the options available to workers experiencing harassment – avoiding the harasser, or consulting with family members – the least common response of either men or women was to take some formal action.
Conflict of interest
Experts point to several contributing factors. Human resources departments, while officially responsible for fielding employee complaints, also work for a company that faces potential liability – an inherent conflict of interest.
And for some human resource officers, conducting an investigation into harassment allegations against a top executive or star performer can be hazardous to their own careers. The result can often be that human resources personnel are more inclined to suppress allegations than get to the bottom of them.
"HR's client is the company, which means that HR is supposed to protect the company's interests," said Cynthia Calvert, a discrimination lawyer and senior adviser to the Centre for WorkLife Law in San Francisco.
Lindsley, the former Omni director, started as a server at an Omni Hotel restaurant and eventually became the first woman to be named director of food and beverage at a hotel. Human resources ignored virtually all of the sexual harassment and other grievances she made to the department during her 15 years with the chain, according to allegations she made in her complaint and in an interview.
She said the various human resources directors she spoke with rarely interviewed people Lindsley had said were witnesses to the behaviour. Lindsley also said there appeared to have been no confidentiality in the system – that her boss and others were made aware she had complained about them.
In an emailed statement, a spokeswoman for Omni and its parent company, TRT Holdings, said: "While we do not comment on active litigation, we want to be clear that we dispute Ms Lindsley's allegations and will defend against her lawsuit."
Personal and professional concerns
While many human resources officials would undoubtedly prefer to respond more vigorously to harassment complaints, the fact that they work for the company places significant limits on them – even down to the most basic human interactions. For example, human resources officials must carefully parse their words when speaking with accusers for fear that their remarks could later be introduced as evidence in court.
"She has spent hours if not days trying to figure out how she's going to tell you, and you want to have tissues there because she is going to cry in your office," said Kate Bischoff, a human resources compliance consultant. "But you can't say, 'I'm so sorry' because that could be an acknowledgment [of wrongdoing]."
Even if human resources officials conclude that the accused should be disciplined or fired, they typically have no independent authority to make it happen.
"I have not met an HR person who doesn't want to do the right thing for employees," said Bischoff, who is a former human resources official. "That said, they're in the same power structure that the employee alleging harassment is in.
"If you're looking at terminating someone who is very valuable to the company, that puts the HR person at risk, too."
When top executives ignore a human resources official's recommendation about how to end discrimination or harassment, the official typically has only one form of recourse: leave the company. And even that may not save a human resources official from a chief executive's wrath.
Payback for complainers
Shortly after Patricia Lebens began working as a human resources official for a Minnesota medical device manufacturer called PMT, she became aware that the founder refused to hire women or anyone over 40 as a sales representative, according to an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint.
After concluding that the founder would not change these policies, she anonymously tipped off the commission, but quit after the founder vowed to "go after" the person responsible for the report.
Roughly two years later, shortly after the company founder finally discovered that it was Lebens who had alerted the commission, the company enlisted the local sheriff's office to investigate Lebens for supposedly stealing nearly $2000. (The charge proved unfounded, and the commission later won compensation for Lebens and rejected job applicants as part of a settlement with the company.) Lebens declined to comment, and the company did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
More often, however, the women who come forward with complaints about harassment say they wind up being ostracised or made to feel uncomfortable in their jobs. Some eventually quit or are pushed out of the company.
For Lindsley, the last straw came during a wine-promotion trip in Chile in 2015. One of only two women among the 50 executives in attendance, Lindsley said some of the men on the trip suggested she could make more money working as a prostitute in Chile than as a hotel executive.
Lindsley left the chain the next year.
"I felt like all of those sexual harassment workshops we went to were a big waste of time," said Lindsley, who now works for a hotel chain in Des Moines. "I personally never felt when I went to human resources about a sexual harassment complaint that it was handled appropriately and that I was protected."
Aug. 22, 2018 "#MeToo moves the conversation into executive suites": Today I found this article by Jared Lindzon in the Globe and Mail:
Sexual misconduct in the workplace was once considered a middle management or human resources issue, but recent high-profile incidents of powerful men abusing their position in the workplace has moved the conversation into Canadian board rooms.
According to a recent survey by board seat marketplace theBoardlist, and research and insights provider Qualtrics, 53 per cent of Canadian board members and 66 per cent of venture capital respondents have discussed re-evaluating harassment policies in direct response to the #MeToo movement. By comparison, only 43 per cent of American board members had discussed sexually inappropriate behaviour in the workplace.
“I personally think the discrepancy in numbers between the two countries just reflects the two different philosophies,” said Shannon Gordon, CEO of theBoardlist. “If in America we are really wedded to the idea that anyone can be anything and it is all about personal responsibility, leadership is going to be less likely to accept the notion that these obstacles or biases exist, thereby making the conversation less likely to happen.”
Though board members in the United States are lagging behind Canadian counterparts Ms. Gordon said there’s some evidence that progress is being made. While only 43 per cent of American board of directors had discussed the topic as of the spring, it’s a major jump from the 23 per cent that had addressed the issue prior to the rise of the #MeToo movement in October, 2017, according to a previous survey by theBroadlist.
Ms. Gordon explains that policymaking and conflict resolution were once left to human resources or management, but these surveys suggest board members are increasingly acknowledging their responsibility for ensuring a safe working environment.
“The board’s responsibility is to help the organization that they serve navigate some of its most strategic issues, and it’s pretty obvious that culture and more specifically issues around sexism is certainly a strategic issue for the company,” Ms. Gordon said.
Ms. Gordon adds that the public attention surrounding the #MeToo movement has highlighted the liability organizations face should they fail to properly handle instances of sexual harassment and abuse in the workplace. “You can see what the consequence is, from the many examples we've unfortunately had in the last year or so, about what an incredibly negative impact that can have on a company from a PR perspective, a talent retention perspective and a recruiting perspective,” she said.
While such consequences were often limited to individual perpetrators prior to the #MeToo movement, the way in which an organization handles such issues in the workplace can have a significant impact on the company at large. As a result, many Canadian board members are now considering whether their policies are adequate for the post #MeToo-era.
“I’ve done more sexual-harassment investigations in the last nine months than I’ve probably done in the entire 15 years before it,” said Alix Herber, a partner in the labour, employment and human rights group at Canadian corporate law firm Fasken Martineau.
Ms. Herber said the spike in investigations is largely a result of the #MeToo movement, as victims who previously remained silent are now feeling empowered to come forward.
“Before the #MeToo movement, if someone came forward and said ‘five or six years ago so-and-so made an inappropriate sexual remark to me' nobody would be up in arms about it, because it’s so dated,” she said.
“Because of the #MeToo movement and what it says and means outside of the legal framework, my advice to clients is we can’t not deal with it, and we need to investigate whether there’s an ongoing problem.”
“Because of the #MeToo movement and what it says and means outside of the legal framework, my advice to clients is we can’t not deal with it, and we need to investigate whether there’s an ongoing problem.”
While most organizations have specific policies addressing workplace misconduct, Ms. Herber said they’re “only as good as the paper they’re written on” if not reviewed and reinforced on a regular basis.
“If they’re up on the shelf and never reviewed and no one really talks about it then they’re not living documents that people feel comfortable they can rely on,” she said. “What I see more and what I recommend as legal counsel is that companies are ensuring their policies are well known within the organization, and that comes through regular training.”
Jan Nevins, who sits on four boards and has been a board member for more than 25 years, said while policies have long been in place, the #MeToo movement has inspired executives and board members to review and reaffirm their commitment to providing a safe work environment.
“There's definitely been a movement; we've gone from just hearing about it to action,” she said. “This year there's been a number of instances where the topic of the session is the #MeToo movement. There have been a lot of sessions within Canada on this topic.”
Cycling Canada board member Robin Porter adds that the conversations she’s hearing in the boardroom today are a far cry from how issues related to sexual misconduct and sexism were handled throughout her career.
“I don’t think I know any woman who has not been harassed in some way shape or form, at least from my generation,” said the 50 year-old. “It was the norm when I started working that you searched for who to avoid, and often were told who to avoid, because nobody dealt with it. The attitude has changed substantially.”
Large-scale, grassroots movements that arise from social media can sometimes burn out as fast as they flare up, but nearly a year after the hashtag was popularized, Ms. Gordon said there’s a sense among board members that #MeToo will have a lasting impact on workplaces in Canada and beyond.
“It is a very different movement than anything that’s happened in the past,” she said. “And I believe it has staying power; I don’t think we’re ever going to go back."
Another article in the G&M recently said that companies are taking action by new rules. No more male and female travel, no more meetings or lunches alone with females, retiring female CEOs and board members early. In other words, lets prevent any problems before they happen. The female CEO of PepsiCo was retired early as stated in the report.
No comments:
Post a Comment