Sunday, February 9, 2020

"Stuck on bad love"/ "Why is loneliness so toxic?"/ I'm looking for love

Jan. 30, 2018 "Stuck on bad love": Today I found this advice column by David Eddie in the Globe and Mail: 

The question


I was with my boyfriend for a year. The beginning was heavenly, full of intense attraction and we were inseparable. Then I found out he was an alcoholic in denial but chose to ignore it because he never drank with me. He verbally abused me and treated me like crap in arguments. The first time we broke up was because my friend saw his car outside a strip club while I was at work – working to take care of both of us because he was unemployed after a car accident. I lived one month in the hospital seeing him through all the pain and surgeries. Then it was on and off at least 15 times.


One of those times we argued and he hit me. We stayed apart for three months but reunited over Christmas last year. Both of us missed each other so much and could not move on.



We only lasted two weeks and it was back to arguing about little things and he said he needed to focus on his daughter. I'm in so much emotional pain. I don't know how to get over him or let someone go whom I clearly don't mean the world to. I can't stop talking to him or seeing him. I miss all the little cute things we shared when times were good. I have a guy best friend who loves and deserves me but I'm not crazy about him. I wish I loved him as he loves me and life would be great.


The answer



You need to get as far away as possible as fast as possible from this guy and see as little as possible of him henceforward.


Have I made myself clear? Have I used the term "as possible" often enough? Unemployed, an alcoholic, verbally abusive, treats you like dirt, unwilling to commit, hits you – can we agree he's not exactly Prince Charming? Not Mr. Right?


I understand one thing all too well, though: You're drawn to him. It's funny – well, not funny, it's often been a source of consternation and distress for me – how God has chosen to wire us poor humans down here to be attracted to folks who are obviously dead wrong for us.


Of course there are all kinds of complex reasons women (and men) stay in abusive relationships. Sexual attraction, low self-esteem, feeling trapped, family history... But I'm not qualified to pronounce on that. 

And here's something else I normally hate to say (because it always seems like the ultimate advice-columnist cop-out) but I think is apropos here: Maybe seek counselling to try to figure out why you can't seem to extricate yourself from a clearly terrible situation.


Not implying it's your fault. Man do I hate dudes like this guy, and all the men in the news lately (and not in the news – at least the ones against whom the allegations are true – like him. Because it gives fodder to people who would say: "Men are [insert pejorative adjective here.]"



But we're not all like that! Some of us are decent, respectful, and treat women well.

And you need to hold out for one of those.


Meanwhile, drop this guy like a bag of dirt (which is what it sounds like he is). "Ghost" him (fail to get back to him on every possible platform) if you have to. I don't know you but I know this: You deserve better. He's bad news and there's enough of that in your morning paper and on TV. You don't need it in your love life.


Also, sorry to say, forget this other "guy best friend" of yours as a possible mate. Getting together with him would end in tears also. It goes against what many people might say on the topic, but I say: 

A relationship without sexual attraction is like a car without an engine: You can push it up some hills and it'll roll down others, but it's no way to get from Point A to Point B.


(At least at first: later on in relationships, and later in life, many seem to learn to cope without it.)


No: you want it all, baby – or at least most of "it all." Of course, "it all" is obviously very rare, a Quixotic dream. But you deserve to get as close an approximation to that dream as possible.


My opinion: It seems like this woman wants a third party like David Eddie to tell her what she knows she is supposed to do.


 "Why is loneliness so toxic?": Today I found this article by Wency Leung in the Globe and Mail:



Dr. Chris Fagundes wanted to study how loneliness affected the way people felt when they were ill. So the assistant professor of psychology at Rice University and his team recruited 213 healthy participants and asked them about how lonely and socially isolated they were.


Then, the researchers gave each participant nasal drops containing rhinovirus 39, one of the viruses responsible for the common cold, sequestered them in separate hotel rooms for five days and asked them to record how they felt.


When Fagundes and his team analyzed the study results, they made a curious finding.




"Put simply, lonelier people feel worse when they are sick than less lonely people," Fagundes and his co-authors wrote in their 2017 paper, published in the American Psychological Association journal Health Psychology.


Fagundes says he suspects the increased misery is not just a matter of perception. Loneliness, it seems, actually does make people sicker. Study after study suggests loneliness is a health hazard, raising a person's risk of a wide range of illnesses from cardiovascular disease and cancer to depression and dementia.

 An oft-cited 2015 meta-analysis from researchers at Brigham Young University showed loneliness and social isolation are as deadly as well-established risk factors, such as obesity, smoking and lack of physical activity.




The health consequences of loneliness have become the focus of widespread public dialogue in recent years, as media such as The New York Times, Forbes and the BBC warn of a loneliness "epidemic." Britain's government appointed a new "minister for loneliness" in January to help address the health and social toll of loneliness.


Loneliness is distinct from the number of friends a person has or how much time he or she spends alone, but is rather defined by a longing for greater social interaction. In other words, you are lonely when your appetite for social interaction is unsatisfied. So, just as you may be able spend your days alone but never feel lonely, you could be constantly surrounded by friends and family yet still be wanting.


But just what makes loneliness so toxic? Scientists are looking for answers by delving into how the human body responds to feeling alienated. By concentrating on understanding the genetics and biological mechanisms involved, researchers are on the path to solutions, if not to eradicate loneliness, then at least to blunt its harmful effects.


Those who study loneliness typically subscribe to one of two potential explanations for why it is so detrimental, says Dr. Lisa Jaremka, assistant professor of psychological and brain sciences at the University of Delaware, and a co-author with Fagundes of the 2017 Health Psychology study. The first is that loneliness is a source of stress, and stress is known to have a wide range of negative health consequences, including high blood pressure, sleeplessness, indigestion and poor dietary habits.


But Jaremka belongs to a second camp that suspects there is more to it. She says she believes something about loneliness is specifically threatening. After all, Jaremka says, a wealth of research shows that a sense of being cared for and loved is crucial to our well-being.




"This need to belong is a fundamental part of being human. It's like the air we breathe," she says. "We need oxygen and we need healthy, thriving relationships equally as much."


Without these relationships, she adds, "bad things result, including health problems."


One such "bad thing" researchers are focusing on is the impact of loneliness on immune response, particularly its role in chronic inflammation. Unlike acute inflammation, which people may experience as swelling and redness when they get a cut or are exposed to an allergen, chronic inflammation does not necessarily produce obvious symptoms, but signs of it can be detected via blood tests. (Inflammatory molecules circulate throughout the body, including the brain.)


Chronic inflammation is "one of the major fertilizers" for many of the illnesses associated with loneliness, including heart disease, cancer and neurodegenerative disorders, says Dr. Steve Cole, a genomics researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles.


So what role does loneliness play in chronic inflammation?


To conceptualize how immune systems function, first consider two of the major kinds of pathogens: viruses and bacteria, Cole says. Viruses spend much of their life cycle within a host's own cells, and tend to be transmitted from person to person. As such, he explains, they are intrinsically social pathogens.




Bacteria, by comparison, are generally not as social, he says. Certain kinds of bacteria may thrive in dirt or in the environment, for instance, and may not pose a threat unless they get into a wound.


Because viruses and bacteria behave differently, it makes sense that we would need at least two different kinds of immune responses to tackle them – an inflammatory response that is good for fighting bacteria, and an anti-viral response that is good against viruses, Cole says. The trouble is that our bodies cannot fight both optimally at the same time.


Social species, such as humans and primates, appear to have developed a stronger anti-viral response by default, meaning our immune systems are usually on the defence against viruses – and for good reason, he says. We are probably more likely to catch a virus from someone within our social circles than we are to have some infectious bacteria enter our skin through an injury.


But when faced with a fight-or-flight experience, the immune system temporarily redirects its resources away from fighting viruses to brace for a bacterial infection, Cole says. And it appears loneliness triggers the same response.


Thus, he says, "one way of thinking about loneliness is it … is constantly activating this defensive stance in our body that's getting us ready to be injured."


This too, he suggests, may be adaptive, since when humans are alone, they're more vulnerable to predators and enemy attacks.


In 2007, providing a framework for this idea, Cole and his team found distinct differences in the gene expression in the white blood cells of lonely people, compared with non-lonely people. Rather than being in the default anti-viral stance, the immune systems of lonely people appeared to be tipped in favour of producing inflammation.


High levels of inflammation in chronically lonely people have led some researchers to wonder whether anti-inflammatory drugs, such as ibuprofen, could block the harmful effects of loneliness, Cole says.


Conceptually, at least, this may be possible, Jaremka says, but it does not address the underlying problem. "If you were to, say, stop using those drugs, and you're still lonely, then you're likely going to experience high inflammation again," she says.


Loneliness, after all, serves an important function, suggests Dr. Abraham Palmer at the University of California, San Diego, who has been studying how much of loneliness is genetic. Palmer, a professor of psychiatry and vice-chair of basic research, explains loneliness may be a warning signal that motivates people to try to develop social links, in the same way the pain of a burn motivates people to move away from a hot flame.


"It's important [for humans] to maintain social connections for child-rearing, for generating food, etc. It's important to be part of a group," he says. "So it's uncomfortable when you are failing to do that, because that is actually a danger."


Is there a cure for loneliness?


Since people have varying appetites for social interaction, it's important not to confuse loneliness with social isolation. Just as some people are quite happy living alone, others may be constantly surrounded by friends and family, yet still feel they lack the social connections they desire, says Dr. Abraham Palmer of the University of California, San Diego.


Although many of us may feel periodically lonely, loneliness seems to be especially damaging experienced day in and day out for years – when it becomes a lifestyle and not just a transient phase, says Dr. Steve Cole of the University of California, Los Angeles.


So what can we do about loneliness? An obvious answer may be to put lonely people in a room and encourage them to socialize. But Cole says this tactic can actually make things worse. After all, a surefire way to make people feel socially insecure is to surround them with strangers with whom they have trouble connecting.


A common misperception is that lonely people lack social skills, says Dr. Lisa Jaremka of the University of Delaware. Simply teaching them how to engage socially or to "make friends" does little to help.


What might work are specialized versions of cognitive behavioural therapies, Jaremka says. These therapies, best done with a therapist, involve getting people to recognize and reframe their thought patterns around loneliness.


Because lonely people tend to have an exaggerated inflammatory response (the body's way of dealing with injury), anti-inflammatory medication such as ibuprofen seems a "modestly promising" way to protect against the health consequences of loneliness, Cole says, although he cautions this research is still in its infancy. He describes inflammation as "one of the major fertilizers" for many chronic illnesses.


Beyond that, he says, collaborating on some kind of pro-social project seems to help. When the task is focused on a shared purpose, it seems "a good indirect attack on loneliness," he says.


Toronto graphic designer Marissa Korda inadvertently found another potentially helpful tactic: having people share their experiences of loneliness. Korda, 26, created the online community The Loneliness Project in October as a "passion project," publishing submissions from strangers about feeling lonely via Facebook, Instagram and the project's website.


While her aim was to promote empathy, Korda found the project also seems to make people more comfortable with their loneliness. Knowing they are not alone seems to help ease the misery.


Attempting to eradicate or cure loneliness is unrealistic, Korda says, and may further stigmatize the lonely. Instead, she says, "I think what we need to do is … get it into the open so we can treat it as a normal part of being human, which is exactly what it is."

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/why-is-loneliness-so-toxic/article37734381/

Feb. 8, 2020 I'm looking for love: I have been actively looking to be in a relationship since 2015.  I attended lots of speed dating events since then.  So it's like I attend 10 dates and meet 10 guys all in one night.  It's fast.

I attended more Meetups.  I emailed some of my friends and co-workers and told them I'm looking.  So if you know anyone, let me know.

I have done online dating, but not much.  I will tell you more in a more in-depth blog post.

My week:

Feb. 7, 2020 Work: I worked full- time this week, so that's why I'm writing my weekly email now.


Etown Salsa: I was reading the Edmonton Examiner and I found this ad.  I like dancing so I had to look it up:

Free whiteboard:  My boss was going to throw out this whiteboard, but I decided to put this in my home office.  I had found a bag of old pens and dry erase markers in the garbage a couple years ago.  I then recycled most of them at Staples.  However, there were 2 dry erase markers I used on paper for a bit.

Hallmark Canada: I wrote about Papyrus and Carlton Cards closing down.  I asked: "What store is going to close down next?  Hallmark?"

“What Hallmark kind of believes in is that this need for human connection is timeless and it’s universal. Everybody needs to be and wants to be recognized and cared for. That’s as important now as it ever has been,” she said. “It really goes beyond age, gender, culture and geography.”


Retail Insider: This website is filled with articles and podcasts:

Hundreds of stores to close in Canada in early 2020:

Feb. 8, 2020 God Friended Me: I have been watching these eps that I saved onto my DVR.  I saw the ep called "The Fighter" who is about a female social worker who is in MMA.  I like MMA and it reminded me a bit of my script The Vertex Fighter, so I had to watch it.

Josh Segerra: The best part was that he was in it as the boyfriend Austin.  As soon as I saw him, I was like: "Isn't he the guy from Arrow?"  I was right.  He played the lawyer Adrian Chase on season 5 of that show.  At first he played a lawyer, and then there were more depths to his character.  He's handsome. 


Sunday, February 2, 2020

"What will always be true of management?"/ "Amazon wins patent for a more hands-on approach to productivity"

Feb. 3, 2018 "What will always be true of management?": Today I found this article by Harvey Schachter in the Globe and Mail.  First it's about management, and then it goes into how to ask for a raise.

From the e-mail inbox:



If you take the long view of leadership and management, what has really changed over the years? And what remains bedrock true regardless of the fads that come and go?


I'm influenced by Ole Ingstrup, former head of the Correctional Service of Canada, who I assisted on his book The Three Pillars of Public Management, co-authored with Paul Crookall.



Mr. Ingstrup delineated two streams in management over the years, one analytical and the other human relations-oriented, which oscillated in importance over time, starting with Frederick Winslow Taylor's studies on industrial efficiency in the late 1800s. 

As I think back, when I studied management at McGill in the 1960s, human relations was ascendant. The excitement was over the human-relations findings from people such as Douglas McGregor and Abraham Maslow, but we were also being prepped for the next wave as we studied, for the first time, operations research and took our Fortran cards to the computer lab.



These days, I'm not sure if either approach dominates, as we benefit from the latest studies in psychology and big data simultaneously. The field of behavioural economics may symbolize that co-mingling.

 At the same time, artificial intelligence and the rise of Amazon, a data company, and algorithmic-focused operations such as Facebook, suggest we may be headed towards an era of analytical supremacy.




Canada has benefited from a management gadfly I came to know initially back at McGill: Henry Mintzberg.


Perhaps of most relevance to your question are two powerful notions he advanced. He helped us to understand that strategy can be emergent, from the grassroots, rather than just be delivered top down, from the executive retreat. 

He has received less attention for his recent organizational model, notably in the book Managing, in which he shows managers at the centre of a circle rather than atop a hierarchy. In a networked world, managers operate with and through a myriad of people, inside and outside the organization.



A final change worth highlighting is that we can benefit these days from people such as Jim Collins, a dedicated researcher on management who tries to analyze success in a rigorous way, digging out "the truth." We are armed, if we choose, with better knowledge of what works, although as with medicine, each study has flaws and no single one has all the answers.


What's the best way to broach the topic of a pay raise?


That's something I have never done, so you are asking the wrong guy. But I did get pay raises, unasked, so my approach wasn't a total disaster.

First, it's important at the outset of a job to settle on the best remuneration you can obtain. You lose out if you don't. Studies show women, who are less likely than men to push for more money, have a significant shortfall over a lifetime.


If when you take the job your boss says for now you need to accept less but down the road an adjustment can be made, that's an obvious starting point. If not, think of your request through the eyes of your boss. When you ask for a raise, she is probably thinking, in order, of:

  • Her own boss’s likely reaction.
     
  • Her budget.
     
  • What the request says about you and her future dealings with you.
     
  • Whether it’s justified.

Unfortunately, the tendency is to start with the bottom factor: performance. You go in armed with all sorts of proof of your value, which is perhaps only a minor part of the decision, mainly to arm your boss to deal with her boss.


You don't influence budget. But you should be sensitive to it. If somebody has just left – particularly somebody with a hefty pay packet – your boss may have room to respond to your request. Budget time is also a good time to ask, since money for the coming period is being considered.


The boss will be evaluating what your request means down the road in dealing with you. Are you going to be a nuisance, always asking for money and other things? 

If denied, will you become demoralized, a pain to have on staff? 


So you want to provide some reassurance about your commitment and that she won't have you in her office every six months.



Good luck.



Cannonballs

  • Any board of directors that doesn’t spend much of its time in the next few months considering the risk of a senior manager being accused of sexual assault is taking a big risk. You need a process to handle such claims that is seen as fair but also highly responsive to allegations, backed by credibility in advance, preferably through leaders who have shown passion for the issue, not just jumping on it now as flavour of the month. Talking to women’s groups probably beats talking to the lawyers.
     
  • Keep in mind that sexual harassment is not a random occurrence. John Sullivan, who has been called “the father of HR metrics,” says it’s more likely to occur in certain places than others, for example IT rather than HR.
     
  • In Mr. Mintzberg’s circular schema, and others, leaders are ambassadors who represent their organizations outside. The media may like to poke fun at the glitzy aspects of Davos, as it did last week, and the left has reason to question such a gathering. But a prime minister or president – even from the left – has to consider being there, at least from time to time.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/management/which-management-principles-have-withstood-the-test-of-time/article37816992/
"Amazon wins patent for a more hands-on approach to productivity": Today I found this article by Ceylan Yeginsu in the Globe and Mail:

LONDON — What if your employer made you wear a wristband that tracked your every move, and that even nudged you via vibrations when it judged that you were doing something wrong?


What if your supervisor could identify every time you paused to scratch or fidget, and for how long you took a bathroom break?


What may sound like dystopian fiction could become a reality for Amazon warehouse workers around the world. The company has won two patents for such a wristband, though it was unclear if Amazon planned to actually manufacture the tracking device and have employees wear it.


The online retail giant, which plans to build a second headquarters and recently shortlisted 20 potential host cities for it, has also been known to experiment in-house with new technology before selling it worldwide.

Amazon, which rarely discloses information on its patents, could not immediately be reached for comment on Thursday.

But the patent disclosure goes to the heart about a global debate about privacy and security. Amazon already has a reputation for a workplace culture that thrives on a hard-hitting management style, and has experimented with how far it can push white-collar workers in order to reach its delivery targets.



Privacy advocates, however, note that a lot can go wrong even with everyday tracking technology. On Monday, the tech industry was jolted by the discovery that Strava, a fitness app that allows users to track their activities and compare their performance with other people running or cycling in the same places, had unwittingly highlighted the locations of United States military bases and the movements of their personnel in Iraq and Syria.

The patent applications, filed in 2016, were published in September, and Amazon won them this week, according to GeekWire, which reported the patents’ publication on Tuesday.


In theory, Amazon’s proposed technology would emit ultrasonic sound pulses and radio transmissions to track where an employee’s hands were in relation to inventory bins, and provide “haptic feedback” to steer the worker toward the correct bin.


The aim, Amazon says in the patent, is to streamline “time consuming” tasks, like responding to orders and packaging them for speedy delivery. With guidance from a wristband, workers could fill orders faster.


Critics say such wristbands raise concerns about privacy and would add a new layer of surveillance to the workplace, and that the use of the devices could result in employees being treated more like robots than human beings.
Current and former Amazon employees said the company already used similar tracking technology in its warehouses and said they would not be surprised if it put the patents into practice.

Max Crawford, a former Amazon warehouse worker in Britain, said in a phone interview, “After a year working on the floor, I felt like I had become a version of the robots I was working with.”


He described having to process hundreds of items in an hour — a pace so extreme that one day, he said, he fell over from dizziness.


“There was no time to go to the loo,” he said, using the British slang for toilet. “You had to process the items in seconds and then move on. If you didn’t meet targets, you were fired.”


He worked back and forth at two Amazon warehouses for more than two years and then quit in 2015 because of health concerns, he said: “I got burned out.”


Mr. Crawford agreed that the wristbands might save some time and labor, but he said the tracking was “stalkerish” and feared that workers might be unfairly scrutinized if their hands were found to be “in the wrong place at the wrong time.”


“They want to turn people into machines,” he said. “The robotic technology isn’t up to scratch yet, so until it is, they will use human robots.”


Many companies file patents for products that never see the light of day. And Amazon would not be the first employer to push boundaries in the search for a more efficient, speedy work force. Companies are increasingly introducing artificial intelligence into the workplace to help with productivity, and technology is often used to monitor employee whereabouts.


One company in London is developing artificial intelligence systems to flag unusual workplace behavior, while another used a messaging application to track its employees.

In Wisconsin, a technology company called Three Square Market offered employees an opportunity to have microchips implanted under their skin in order, it said, to be able to use its services seamlessly.
Initially, more than 50 out of 80 staff members at its headquarters in River Falls, Wis., volunteered.


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/01/technology/amazon-wristband-tracking-privacy.html

My opinion: If the watch makes you stop from making a mistake, that's good.  It also shows how productive you are.  By all means it can show you that you have been on a task that's too long.

"Learn how to lead your unleadable employees"/ "My employee often takes disruptive breaks"

Feb. 27, 2017 "Learn how to lead your unleadable employees": Today I found this article by Harvey Schachter in the Globe and Mail:


As Alan Willett has counselled executives over the years, he has become fascinated by the challenge of leading the unleadable. Every workplace has mavericks, cynics, divas and other difficult people. Those folks usually have strengths that even the bosses they rankle can acknowledge. Unfortunately, often they go too far, like the diva so concerned about his project he won’t allow any tweaks.

“The unleadable have the good of the group in mind. 

The maverick wants to make the group better.

 But they step on toes and hurt morale. They need guidance to help them get others to get excited about the maverick’s goals,” the Ithaca, N.Y., consultant says in an interview.

Guidance is a manager’s role. And it may be you have to guide them right out the door; indeed, one of the best features of his book, Leading the Unleadable, is the table he uses to help the executives he works with decide whether to remove or improve an individual.

 At the same time, he feels you should “learn to love the challenge of transforming the troublesome to tremendous.”

That may start with working on yourself, changing your mindset. He stresses that if there’s a problem with a staff member, it’s your fault (even if it’s not your fault). By that, he means you need to accept that you are managing the individual and any trouble is your responsibility to solve, even if you just became the boss a day or two ago.

He urges you to appreciate the diversity of every leaf. You need a range of people who look at things from different angles. As well, start with the belief that everyone has good intentions. 

The mavericks, cynics and divas aren’t out to sink you; they just see another path to improving the organization.

Over the years, he has not found one person trying to hurt the leader or the group: “They were trying to help, but needed a translator to help them communicate their ideas and be effective.”

If that sounds Pollyannaish, he stresses the importance of setting a high bar for excellence those people are expected to meet. That actually helps to prevent problems. They know what’s acceptable and what’s not. 

Treat trouble as information-rich data you can act on.

When weighing whether to remove or improve, use these six criterion he highlights:

The person’s ability to take feedback and improve.

Is the person well loved? (Sometimes such individuals have a huge following, sometimes a limited but fervent base of fans, and sometimes they are loathed by everyone.)

What are his or her collaboration skills?

How does the individual’s skills and experience fit with current needs?

How do those skills and experience fit with future needs?

 If the person is removed, how difficult will it be to acquire the skills you need in the time frame it will take to hire?

Put those elements on a spreadsheet-like grid beside cells marked from minus two to plus two, the ratings you can assign for each criteria.

He says most of the time it will fairly quickly show you what you need to do as you study the score.

The questions force you to consider the consequences. You probably don’t want a schism if the troublesome person is ejected, and you could face that if they have many supporters.

 You don’t want to lose skills that are important today, particularly if it will be difficult to replace the individual. “Sometimes you fill out the chart and see they are disruptive, but important,” he says.

He also stresses you have a range of options for action:

You can wait to see if the situation corrects itself. This is rarely the best solution, he concedes, but should be carefully considered.

You can try to help the person correct the situation within the job he or she holds.

You could hire an external expert to help coach the individual.

There can be small modifications to the job to make it work better for everyone.

The person can be moved to a new position or new responsibility within the same project or team.

The individual can be moved to a different part of the organization – one where he or she can be more effective, not merely transferring trouble to get it off your shoulders.

The person can be removed from the organization.

With his chart, those options and the mindset he espouses, you can lead the unleadable more effectively.


My opinion: I like the "remove or improve" part.  It's like if you don't like something, you either change it or get rid of it.

It can be applied to jobs, employees,  or friendships.  You may like a friend, but you don't like his or her behavior in this one aspect.  It's like I send 3 emails a week.  There are a few of you who only get 1 email a week because you requested it.



"My employee often takes disruptive breaks": Today I found this article in the Globe and Mail:


THE QUESTION

I have a small business with 15 employees. One of my employees will arrive at work on time, then head straight to the bathroom for 20 minutes. He holds up an entire crew, which ends up leaving the shop a half hour after they should. Though I’ve brought up this issue with the employee in the past, he continues this practice. Any ideas as to how to properly handle this situation?


THE FIRST ANSWER

Zuleika Sgro

 Director of people, Saje Natural Wellness, Vancouver

This can certainly be a sensitive conversation to have. To approach it, my advice is to keep a true log of the frequency of the breaks your employees take. And if you have a written policy for breaks in place, reference both in a private conversation with this member of your team.

Start the conversation by letting the employee know that you are concerned with the length of his break. Your reason for the conversation is to reiterate the break policy and give him an opportunity to share with you any concerns of adherence.

It is important to be mindful that your employee may have a medical condition and could require accommodation. He is not required to share with you the condition, nor should you ask. But if he does share information about a condition as the reason for the breaks, you may request a medical note stating accommodation instructions.

Otherwise, you can use this conversation to make clear your expectations for breaks and I also encourage you to have this conversation with the entire crew for alignment and awareness on the policy. If anyone, including this employee, violates the break policy, you can follow up with written warnings. These may lead to you taking further action if the situation does not improve.

THE SECOND ANSWER

Kyle Couch

 President & CEO, Spectrum Organizational Development, Toronto

Surprisingly, this type of bathroom behaviour is not uncommon. Cellphone rules, and other work pressures, cause many disengaged employees to use this private space as a way to regain some control over their lives. However, there may be a far more serious issue, which you owe it to your employee to have some compassion toward.

Your initial approach to the employee should address the disruption the behaviour causes toward the held-back employees. By starting with the outcome, not the behaviour, this may change your employee’s perspective on the matter.

However, once that is highlighted, your consideration must change to the personal needs of the employee. He may be suffering from a gastrointestinal disease, have mental-health needs with respect to social situations or have a personal conflict with another employee. 

Such issues may be embarrassing to discuss, and may elicit a negative response initially from the employee. These 20 minutes may be the time required to ensure the employee can be successful throughout the rest of the day.

If the issue is not health related, you must have a discussion with the employee, regardless if he is offended. While regulating washroom breaks is not the best approach, pushing to understand why this happens may identify some engagement issues in this employee, and perhaps others in your shop.