The Help Desk (and Other Workplace Myths)
If you work in an office environment, chances are you’ve had a problem with your computer, printer or fax machine at some time or another. And, if your office is like most, you were required to put in a help desk ticket.
And, if this occurred over the past few weeks, there’s about a 15% chance you’re still waiting for assistance.
Unfortunately, the modern day help desk has become a model of inefficiency, as employees are forced to sit “on hold” for up to an hour, or submit a “ticket” with required fields such as dns, tcp/ip, trusted domains, and proxy connections - information the average person couldn‘t possibly know.
In other words, many companies don’t have a help desk so much as a helpless desk.
One of my first experiences with the help desk occurred several years back. I logged on my computer and found that my e-mail was running extremely slow. So, I opened a help desk ticket. Within an hour the ticket had been closed. The resolution to my problem? “Informed user that e-mail was slow”.
Thanks!
Some help desk tickets feature a “severity” field, to indicate the criticality of the issue. Most people will select the highest level, thinking they will get assistance quicker. Not so! Because everyone else is selecting the highest level, and as we all know - if everyone is first, then everyone is also last.
On the flip side…
I’ve worked in tech support, and I’m convinced there are people out there who should be prohibited by law from coming within 100 feet of any electro-mechanical device more complex than an alarm clock. I’ve had clients who swore to me they right-clicked an icon when we both know they double-clicked; who told me their operating system was Microsoft Word; who held documents up to their monitor and pressed the “print screen” key and couldn’t understand why there was nothing in their printer tray. Seriously.
So, how then to make your help desk more efficient? Simple:
Make it more user-friendly. Recognize that tech support personnel are dealing with users of varying levels of technical knowledge and sophistication.
Make your tech support personnel actually troubleshoot the problem, and not just give the user the “top five fixes” (delete your temporary files, clear your cache, cold boot, etc.).
Monitor workflow and make adjustments accordingly. If the average wait time between ticket submission and resolution is more than four hours, you’re just not doing it right.
By following these simple steps, your business can make the help desk truly THIS PROGRAM IS NOT RESPONDING… THIS PROGRAM IS NOT RESPONDING… THIS PROGRAM IS NOT RESPONDING…
Should Work be Fun?
As a brick mason helper during a high school summer, one of my duties was erecting and disassembling scaffolding. One particularly hot July day, we were tearing down “triple bucks”. From 24 feet up, the plywood and planking, heavy with excess mortar and brick chips, impacted the ground below with a resounding crash. A co-worker, A.J., thought it would be funny to let out a blood-curdling scream with every impact. This continued for several minutes, until finally our foreman, Jim had had enough and called A.J. out. “Ah Jim, you’re no fun”, A.J. pouted. “You’re not here to have fun”, Jim retorted gruffly, “you’re here to work”.
And, Jim was right. We were there to work. But, in a sense A.J. was also right. He wasn’t hurting anyone, his antics didn’t slow our efforts, and the few passers-by in the area got a chuckle out of his shenanigans. It then occurred to me: Isn’t it okay to have fun at work?
Some years later, I hesitantly accepted a job in retail sales. There would typically be four or five of us on the floor at any given time, and during slow periods, we did a lot of “goofing off”. I would later remark that I had never had so much fun and made so little money as I did at this job. At some point, news that we were having “too much fun” migrated up the management chain, and we were all admonished to stop cutting up and “look busy” even if there were no customers, and no stocking or tidying up to do. Overnight, morale began to plummet and the revolving door began to spin. Within a few weeks, over half the sales force quit. They weren’t making much money, and they were no longer having fun.
Some businesses will make a genuine effort to make their workplace fun. They’ll have friendly competitions between teams, or host company picnics or other group outings. And while their intentions are typically good, these activities only go so far.
Management is often hesitant to allow any levity in the workplace for fear that productivity will suffer. And, left unchecked, it probably would. I’m not suggesting the company bring in a three-ring circus for the employee‘s amusement, but there is ample middle ground to consider. The workday shouldn’t have to be absolute drudgery.
Ask the employees what they consider fun
Instead of assuming everyone is up for yet another company picnic or “Family Fun Day”, ask your employees what they’d like to do to. If they feel you’re sincere in your request, they won’t be shy about letting you know.
Re-evaluate your policies
Are people being disciplined for innocuous deeds, such as chatting a little too much, or occasionally pulling up a web page that isn‘t work related? Does sharing a (politically correct and non-offensive) joke automatically bar someone from advancement?
Bend the rules from time to time
It goes without saying that injecting a little jocularity into an otherwise mundane workday can alleviate stress and make the employees feel less like little cogs in the big machine. As long as productivity isn’t taking a hit, feel free to look the other way on occasion.
In today’s economy, many workers are painfully aware that their job could disappear overnight. And most are reacting by working harder, and longer hours to increase their perceived odds of being retained in the event of a workforce reduction. But the downside is that many are burning out or bottoming out prematurely. They’re not robots; they’re flesh-and-blood human beings and they can only tolerate so much before they begin to crack.
Finally, did you hear the one about the mule and the near-sighted bumblebee?
Job Interview Tips: Bring a Rabbit’s Foot
If you’re in the job market these days, chances are you’ve been inundated with advice on how to interview. Of course, a lot of the advice is just common sense (be a few minutes early, make sure your resume is up to date, smile), some is contradictory (ask questions, don’t be a chatterbox, sell yourself, don’t come off as a braggart), and some is downright silly (don’t text message or trim your nails during the interview).
Unfortunately, judging by the feedback from job seekers, this advice is virtually worthless. Many of their comments suggest job seekers have been following the recommended guidelines and are still not getting callbacks. Which tells me the tips being doled out aren’t as valuable or relevant as one may think. Then again, some people are getting hired.
What then is the secret for a successful interview? Simple. Either they want you or they don’t.
Okay, its not quite that simple. Even if you’re in the “wanted category”, you still can’t wear gym clothes to the interview, answer your cell phone while the interviewer‘s in mid-sentence, or jump up on the desk shouting, “Show me the money!” Or, you certainly shouldn’t.
But, it seems that interviewers are leaning heavily to one side or another early into the process. In most cases, your resume has already been received and reviewed, or you wouldn’t have gotten the interview in the first place. The interview, therefore, seems to have become more of a minefield you must cross. In other words, the offer is yours as long as you don’t do or say something stupid or outlandish.
On the other hand, if you’re in the “unwanted” category, it probably doesn’t matter what you say or do (or how you say or do it); you’re not getting the offer. The decision was made somewhere between “Where do you see yourself in five years?” and “How many jelly beans would it take to fill the Grand Canyon?”.
Among those likely to find themselves in the “unwanted” category are:
* Younger and older job seekers. Unfortunately, age discrimination is alive and well in these down times.
* Those who’ve been out of work for a year or more. There’s a school of thought that the longer you are unemployed, the less valuable you are.
* Those with gaps in their employment history. Even if you were “down-sized” the feeling is that if you were any good, you wouldn’t have been let go.
* Anyone applying for a job “beneath their station”. You may be willing to take a 60% cut in pay, but the consensus is, you won’t be happy with it for long.
As much as I’d like to end this on an up note, if you’re getting interviews, but not offers (and you’re adhering to all the “Interviewing 101” guidelines), chances are your situation isn’t likely to change anytime soon. On the other hand, every interview you land increases your odds of success. Remember, it just takes one offer to get your foot in the door.
Is Your Workplace Dysfunctional?
Mention the term “dysfunctional workplace“, and most people think of a TV show like The Office, or one of the many movies in that vein. A few however, will tell you it’s their workplace; they live it everyday.
I’ve been there. It’s somewhat eerie in that the degree of dysfunction isn’t immediately obvious; rather it unfurls as one new to the job becomes enmeshed in the environment. There are many hallmarks of a dysfunctional workplace. There’s cronyism and favoritism, harassment, incompetence, apathy, and bullying. There are “personality conflicts” with antagonism so palpable one could just about cut it with a knife. There’s an absolute and total lack of communication among associates. There’s slacking on a major scale, and morale so low employees openly talk about how much they hate being where they are. One wonders how these companies function at all.
There are about a million other signs your workplace could be dysfunctional. I’ve chosen to focus on a few I’ve experienced personally:
Apathy and incompetence are richly rewarded
An individual’s position in the food chain is inversely proportional to their work ethic, ambition, expertise, and experience. Clearly unqualified individuals are brought in as managers, and every time some nitwit gets promoted there’s audible wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Everyone is terrified of the boss
When they’re not kissing up to him, they’re looking for somewhere to hide when he strolls by. He manages through bullying and intimidation, and that’s how he likes it. The general attitude is: If you don’t do anything, you can’t make a mistake.
Kingdom building abounds
Herein defined as taking actions designed solely to benefit that manager’s department at the expense of the company as a whole, kingdom building is often manifest in sucking all the available resources from the rest of the company - from the best computers to the best people. In extreme instances, one could almost imagine a moat around the kingdom builder’s department, with a drawbridge and fire archers patrolling the catwalk.
Managers are afraid to make a decision
I once worked for a company whose unofficial motto was: “Somebody needs to do something”. It was alternately frustrating and laughable. Meetings would typically dissolve into a barrage of unresolved issues being lobbed at the boss, who’d be implored to make a decision, and would counter with assurances he would “run it by” upper management. Or worse, he’d note that management was “aware of” the situation, which translated means: Don’t hold your breath.
When things get hectic, everyone goes into “slow mode”
Phones are ringing off the hook, orders are backing up on the loading dock, customers are fuming. And the employees have been transformed into robotic, zombie-like mannequins, plodding along at a snail’s pace. Waiting for someone else to actually do something.
E-mail has totally replaced conversation
A good rule of thumb: If it’s not something that must be documented, and you can see them from where you sit, get up, go over, and tell them.
It’s impossible to get fired
I once had a co-worker that was so insubordinate we had a pool betting on when he’d be fired. He openly defied his superiors, was loud and obnoxious, and spent a good part of his day searching for other jobs. Eventually he found one, and no one ever collected on the pool.
Critical processes have holes in them big enough to drive a tank through
There’s the documented way of doing things, and there’s the way to do them if you want actual results. Which typically entails a meandering path that only crosses the official process here and there. The phrase: “It’s easier to get forgiveness than permission” is held as gospel.
Every workplace could stand improvement, and no one is perfect, but the dysfunctional workplace is like a sinking ship with no lifeboats. Or buckets. Amazingly, many will languish for years before finally succumbing and slipping beneath the waves. If you’re unfortunate enough to be in such a situation, your ability to change things will be dependent on where you are in the pecking order, how committed you are to change, and how much you are willing to rattle the cage.
Personal Branding: Must-have or Mostly Hype?
I’m seeing a lot of buzz lately about personal branding, which has been defined as the process whereby people and their careers are marked as brands. There are tons of articles on the subject, ranging from how to discover your brand, to how to define it.
So apparently, the days when one could simply be a butcher, baker, or candlestick maker and be done with it are over. Must you now become The Butcher for the Ages, The Quintessential Baker, or The 21st Century Candlestick Maker in order to “make it“?
I’m not so sure. From what I’ve read the message is basically: Learn how to sell yourself.
And that message is centuries old. I can almost imagine two of our early ancestors trekking to the village square with freshly slaughtered goats or whatever slung around their necks, and one reminding the other to stand up straight when negotiating for wares in order to appear more formidable. And, the other reminding the first to wash the goat’s blood from his garments before bidding the local maidens a fair morning. Even then, we were trying make ourselves appear to be more valuable, relevant, and essential than we really were.
And, part of me thinks personal branding is a lot like that.
On the other hand, is it possible that we all engage in personal branding without even realizing it? Could it be that, when you strip away the layers, personal branding is simply touting your stronger points and differentiating yourself from your competitors? And if so, does it also entail stretching the truth from time to time? Playing fast and loose with the facts when it’s to our “strategic advantage” to do so? Sacrificing substance for image?
I only ask because when I digest it all, the sense I get is that personal branding is a lot like a trend which was popular in the early 80’s: Grassroots entrepreneurship. People were quitting their jobs to become the president and CEO of Joe Lunch Pail Enterprises. Most were in the business of selling common household items, or life insurance. And most, over and above characterizing their business as an “enterprise”, tried to appear more successful than they really were.
And most of them were at their former employer’s doors, “hat in hand”, asking for their jobs back within a year.
I’m not saying that everyone who utilizes personal branding is or hopes to become an entrepreneur. The common thread, as I see it, is that both groups want (or wanted) to be viewed as “kind of a big deal”; they endeavored to set themselves apart from their peers, to be seen as more dynamic, energetic, and indispensable.
Just like our goat slaying ancestors.
Discrimination in the Workplace, Part 1: The EEOC and Discriminatory Practices
In this seven-part series, we’ll examine both legal and illegal forms of discrimination in the workplace.
dis-crim-i-nate: to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency whose stated goal is to end employment discrimination. Formed in 1965, the EEOC investigates discrimination complaints based on an individual's race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability and retaliation for reporting and/or opposing a discriminatory practice (a.k.a., “whistle-blowing“). The Commission is also tasked with filing suits on behalf of alleged victims of discrimination against employers and as an adjudicator for claims of discrimination brought against federal agencies.
Like any other government bureaucracy, this one is run and staffed by flesh-and-blood human beings who make mistakes, and probably pursue their own agendas from time to time. In fact in March 2009, an arbitrator ruled that the EEOC had itself been violating the Fair Labor Standards Act with it’s own employees, by pressuring employees to work extra hours without extra pay.
I’m not suggesting the EEOC is any more or less scrupulous, thorough, or effective than any other government bureaucracy. But, it appears the task they’ve been given is enormous, and with record numbers of people looking for work, the opportunity for employers to discriminate (especially against applicants) has increased. Moreover, being discriminated against and being able to prove it are two very different things.
Which is another way of saying: Just because there are laws against discrimination based on an individual's race, religion, gender, age, etc., doesn’t mean said discrimination doesn’t occur every day somewhere, in some form or another.
Employers may also - legally - discriminate against employees and job seekers based on criteria which some believe should be illegal. In this series, I’ll look at some of the practices utilized by employers which are absolutely discriminatory in the strictest sense of the word, but which are absolutely legal, including:
Denying employment to people with “bad” credit
Denying employment to people with criminal records
Denying employment to people with less than perfect driving records
Denying employment to people who “fail” or refuse to submit a sample of their DNA for a drug screen
Discriminating against employees and applicants based on their “lifestyle”
In fact, in most states, a company can fire just about anyone for just about any reason. Legally.
After reading this series you will likely view the term “equal opportunity employer” in a very different light.
Discrimination in the workplace, Part 2: Business Insurance and Negligent Hiring
Ever wonder why a customer service center requires the employees and job applicants to undergo a background or credit check? Or why the assistant manager of the shoe store at the mall had to submit to a drug screen to get the position? I know I did. It made no sense. Then a friend who owns his own business told me: Liability insurance. You see, if an employee does something which adversely affects other employees or customers, the employer can be sued for negligent hiring. Conversely, if an employer has done “due diligence” before hiring said employee, the employer is protected from being sued. Except that due diligence is a pretty fuzzy term, as every definition of it I’ve found contains the word reasonable, and reasonable is open to a considerable amount of interpretation. So the not being sued thing is not absolute.
This, of course, is a grossly over-simplified explanation of how this works, but the gist is clear. Employers want employees who are less likely to get them sued. And that makes perfect sense.
Liability insurance premiums for companies with “high risk” employees are higher. Also makes sense. Some people, who are qualified to hold a certain position, are denied the opportunity because they are considered “high risk”.
And there, as Shakespeare said, is the rub.
An individual that is qualified to hold (or be hired for) a certain position, even if they are the most qualified of all current employees and interested applicants, can legally be denied the opportunity because they have a low credit score, have ever been convicted of virtually any crime, or have what is euphemistically called an “alternative lifestyle”.
There are other types of business insurance; workers’ compensation and casualty insurance, for example, and here again, the rates may vary depending on the perceived “risk exposure” presented by specific employees. Typically, the employer will pay a portion of the employee’s health and dental insurance premiums, and these also can be higher for people within a certain demographic.
Determining exactly who is and isn’t a “high risk” employee is the job of the actuary, who computes premium rates, risks, etc., according to probabilities based on statistical records. For example, an actuary may determine that employees with less then stellar credit scores are more likely to steal from the company, or miss time because they’re in small claims court dealing with a lien or judgment. Of course there are many reasons a person may have low credit scores, and many of these are not the result of irresponsibility on their part. Illness or injury, long periods of unemployment, a failed business, and divorce can wreak havoc on an otherwise financially responsible individual’s credit rating. And, what most people with financial problems need more than anything is a job, so they can begin to pay off debt. Which in many cases they are denied specifically because of their financial woes.
One hopes the irony isn’t lost here.
Those with criminal records, regardless of the crime (or the fact that they have “paid their debt to society”) are also often barred from employment. Here again, what a person trying to get their life back on track needs first and foremost is a job, a way to earn a legal living. One cannot help but wonder what would happen to the recidivism rate if “ex-cons” (especially first time offenders) were given the opportunity to put their past behind them and become what we like to call “productive members of society”.
Discrimination in the workplace, Part 3: Presumed Innocence and Drug Screening
Most Americans have come to learn that they are “innocent until proven guilty” from watching their favorite cop or courtroom drama. Many Americans also believe it is a constitutional right. It is not. It is, according to this site, “a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in many modern countries” and “a legal instrument created by the law to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals”. And, while it is not a constitutional right per se, it is “widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments“.
The fourth amendment also addresses “probable cause”, a term described as “a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime”. The opposite, it would follow, is that the lack of a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime is defined as the lack of probable cause.
So, apparently I have a right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and a protection against unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause.
And every day, somewhere in America, these basic rights are stomped on like an empty soda can, as employees and applicants are forced, as a condition of initial or continued employment, to submit a sample of their DNA for the sole purpose of proving they are innocent of using illegal drugs.
Two points here: One, in no way, shape, or form do I advocate the use of illegal drugs, especially narcotics, and two, there are some jobs I absolutely believe the employer has the right (if not obligation) to require a drug screen. Airline pilots and train engineers come to mind, and other occupations in which the safety of large numbers of people are at stake. But, the vast majority of jobs do not fall into this category, and it has therefore been argued the right of the individual against unreasonable search and seizure outweigh any perceived advantage inherent in testing those workers.
If I wish to play devil’s advocate here, I could certainly argue that if by testing every employee and applicant for drugs I could stop just one occurrence of workplace violence or accident, it is “worth it”. And many do make that argument. Furthermore, I understand their position; I do not agree with it.
Those same people would certainly take exception with a law which allowed a SWAT team to kick down their front door in the middle of the night, and forcibly take a sample of their DNA for a drug screen. Or, search their home, or personal computer hard drive, or take any other actions in an attempt to implicate them in a crime without probable cause that a crime had been committed.
The double standard quickly rises to the surface.
Finally, if I undergo a drug screen which detects some type of painkiller drug, I am “in the clear” as they say, so long as I have a valid prescription. If I have four friends with the same prescription who only take the drug occasionally, and I coerce each of them into giving me half their supply, I am taking three times the prescribed dosage. And, as far as the drug screen is concerned, it is perfectly acceptable, only because it is a legal drug. I don’t know about you, but if I have to choose between working with someone who is taking three times the prescribed dosage of a painkiller drug on a daily basis, and someone who smoked a little marijuana the previous evening, I’m going with the latter.
Discrimination in the workplace, Part 4: Lifestyle Discrimination
Younger readers may find this hard to believe, but not that many years ago an employer could discriminate against an employee or applicant for just about any reason. Aside from the “Big 3” (race, sex, national origin), one could be fired or denied employment for their political and religious beliefs, public establishments they frequented, even the style of clothes they wore.
Of course, these days there are laws to protect us from these archaic policies, and like every other law, they’re broken every day as a matter of practice.
In recent years, people have been fired (or disciplined) for such diverse activities as protesting the war in Iraq, dating co-workers, or visiting certain web sites (from their home computer).
Companies will argue that they must exercise great care in selecting or retaining employees, lest their image be tarnished. Which begs the question: To what degree does an employer have the right to discriminate against an employee or applicant by claiming their “image” is at stake? A company could claim their image could be tarnished by hiring too many employees of a specific race, sex, or national origin. Except of course, it is illegal to discriminate using those specific criteria. The same employer however can and does discriminate based on such diverse criteria as political activism, leisure activities which could be viewed as “unconventional”, and sexual orientation.
In other words, a company can claim that certain people should not be hired, promoted, or retained because a personality trait or habit attributed to that person could “make the company look bad”. I’m not talking about an “on-air personality” for the local TV station, or a high-ranking VP in the banking industry; I mean just about anyone in any position can legally be discriminated against for fear of harming the company’s “image”.
Which raises another question: If an employer can discipline, fire or refuse to hire an individual over just about anything, what’s to prevent them from taking those same actions against someone for reasons which are illegal, and justifying their subterfuge by claiming an “undesirable” lifestyle choice? Was Mfume fired because he belonged to a political organization which holds what some believe to be “extreme” views, or because he’s of African decent? Was Elisha passed over for that promotion because her dress is considered too masculine, or simply because she’s a woman?
Many other people are discriminated against because of their lifestyle; tobacco users, home-schoolers, motorcycle riders, women who moonlight as dancers in “gentlemen’s clubs”. And this discrimination is absolutely legal.
To what degree does an employer have the right to dictate an employee’s lifestyle choices when they’re “off the clock”? To what degree does an employee have the right to do whatever they like on their own time, free of interference or scrutiny from their employer?
The answer, it would seem, depends on your perspective.
Discrimination in the workplace, Part 5: “At-will” Work Laws
As I stated in Part 4, it was not that many years ago that an employer could discriminate against an employee or applicant for just about any reason. In fact - and I admit I was more than a little surprised to learn this - that situation still exists today, in just about every state, under a wide range of circumstances.
At-will employment is a doctrine of American law that defines an employment relationship in which either party can break the relationship with no liability, provided there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship and that the employer does not belong to a collective bargain.
All states are employment at-will states, meaning that they all uphold the doctrine to some degree. To what degree regarding employers' rights to discharge employees, varies by state. You can get a listing here and here.
In other words, if your boss (or your boss’ boss) wants you gone - no matter the reason - you could be fired upon arrival at your workplace tomorrow, and have no legal recourse whatsoever.
There are of course exceptions, most notably the illegal discrimination practices already covered. There are also statutory exceptions. One cannot be fired for refusing to do something illegal, for example, or for taking family or medical leave for a reason outlined in the Family and Medical Leave Act. And, an employer must follow their own termination procedures, typically delineated in the employee handbook or other documentation, or face the risk of a wrongful termination claim.
But these same laws, which have their roots in a 19th century treatise on master-servant relations, protect an employee that quits a job “without reason” also. The hypothetical employee referenced in the last paragraph could stride into their boss’ office and announce “you can’t fire me - I quit”, in essence beating their boss to the punch.
So, the days of indentured servitude are over, and either party in the employee - employer relationship can walk away without liability. What’s the problem then?
In my opinion, it’s the “no express contract” verbiage. While there is no express contract in the strictest sense of the word, the typical employee accepts a job offer with the belief that the job will be theirs for as long as they are meeting or exceeding the expectations of the position, and adhere to all company rules and regulations. They’ll relocate to take the job, sometimes uprooting their family in the process. They’ll forego other employment and educational opportunities. They’ll take on long-term financial obligations - a new home for example - based on their belief that they have the job for as long as they’re doing a good job and staying out of trouble. And they can have this - their livelihood, their means to provide for themselves and their family - taken away from them, at any time, for virtually any reason.
I’ve been around the block a few times, and I realize there are people out there who should be fired, having been given every opportunity to prove themselves and having failed utterly. I’ve seen co-workers come and go, and some of them practically begged to be fired from the moment they walked in the door. But, a significant downturn in business aside, I do not believe a person should be shown the door for anything less than incompetence, dishonesty, or breaking the stated rules.
Discrimination in the workplace, Part 6: Age Discrimination and “Over-qualification”
Of the various types of discrimination covered in this series, age discrimination is the only form which is illegal. And, it’s also on the rise. So much so that many HR representatives and “head-hunters” readily admit it’s practiced by many businesses. Ask any employment agency manager the percentage of their clients who’ve specifically requested no applicant over a certain age be referred, and most will tell you - off the record - it‘s significant.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) is a federal law that protects individuals 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age. And, as with other forms of discrimination, it’s nearly impossible to prove, unless the employer’s actions are blatant. Telling an employee that “the time has come to move aside and give someone else a chance”, for example would be considered a blatant action. Telling an applicant that the company is trying to “appeal to a younger market” would be considered a blatant action. Few interviewers and HR representatives are stupid enough to say something like that, however, so the decision to discriminate against an employee or applicant based solely on their age is often manifest in circling the date of an applicants high school graduation, or some other “time stamp” on the applicant’s resume before submitting it for review.
Many employers will refuse to consider an applicant over a certain age by branding them “overqualified”. It’s difficult to do the same thing for several years and not become at least somewhat qualified. And, with the economy in it’s current straits, it’s relatively simple for an employer to label a position as “entry level” and claim that anyone that can speak intelligently about the position in question is “overqualified”. Again, the preponderance of opportunity to dismiss an older person on these trumped-up grounds is significant.
On that note, there is a myth that companies shy away from older workers because they’re “set in their ways”, or because when you amortize the training costs of a older employee against a younger one it’s not cost efficient, based on the perceived number of years the employee will work before retirement. Except that on average, American workers will change employers every six to seven years, so the cost of training wouldn’t factor in.
The real reasons companies are hesitant to hire older workers is because they cost more to insure. Company costs for health insurance, as well as premiums for other types of insurance are usually higher for older workers. And, older workers typically have a larger financial obligation than younger ones, considering the mortgage, kids in college, etc., and therefore want or need a higher salary.
One frustrated job-seeker in their fifties once commented to me that it was as if employers were passing up full course meals for a bag of lukewarm fast food. And, to take the analogy full circle, they’re doing just that, as the “happy meal” is cheaper than the gourmet meal, just as younger people will typically perform the same duties as older, more experienced workers for less money.
And, with less experience.
Discrimination in the workplace, Part 7: Summary
So. Here I sit in my living room, enveloped within a bubble, if you will, of rights and protections afforded me by virtue of being a citizen of the United States of America. But, I must earn a living, and like most Americans, I must do so by becoming an employee of someone else’s company. So, I leave the comfort of my home, and go down the street and into a local business, where I apply for a job. While doing so, I take a quick inventory and determine that have left many of the aforementioned rights and protections at home. In the pursuit of the means to live, I have been forced to forfeit many of my rights. Furthermore, I could legally be denied a job I am absolutely qualified to hold, because some actuary has determined that I present a greater liability than the person just ahead of or behind me in line for the same position.
What’s going to happen when some actuary determines that left-handed people are more likely to have a lost-time accident than right-handed people? Or that people who wear prescription eyeglasses are not as “productive” as people with 20-20 vision? Or that people with multi-colored hair or body piercings are a “distraction” to the other employees?
What’s going to happen when only the smartest, tallest, thinnest, youngest, most attractive, and most popular 50%, or 25%, or 10% of our society are “eligible” to be employed?
Perhaps a more important question is: Where is the outrage? Why haven’t our elected officials weighed in on this, especially those who tout themselves as supporters of civil liberties and “human rights“? Why are there no support groups, “fun runs”, or rallies on the steps of the Capitol building for those who have been denied the opportunity to earn a living because of a bad decision, unforeseen circumstances, a lifestyle choice, or their date of birth?
I’m convinced that the only way to stop these forms of discrimination is to make it illegal for an employer to ask for, or otherwise ascertain information regarding an applicant’s age, credit score, criminal background, or other criteria outlined here, save for the exclusions already mentioned. If an employer doesn’t know these things about an employee or applicant, they can’t very well discriminate against them based on these criteria. And if the insurance company doesn’t know these things about an employee or applicant, they can’t very well charge the company a higher premium based on these criteria.
If I am an employer, I could make the case that I have the right to hire whomever I desire, because it‘s my company, or my department, and ultimately I‘m responsible for the decisions which impact it. I could make the case that I have the right to hire someone because they looked me in the eye and shook my hand firmly, or because they graduated from the same college as I, or because I think they would “fit in”.
As a former business owner, I know I dismissed a few job applicants based on their sloppy attire, or the fact they didn’t bring a resume, or they asked questions which told me they were only interested in a paycheck - not a job. Having passed those hurdles, however, I looked solely at qualifications. I wanted the best people I could get for what I was willing to pay.
If one believes - as I do - that the opportunity to earn a living should be a basic right of all Americans, we must establish fair and equitable guidelines in hiring, promotion, retention, and all other aspects of employment; guidelines which go beyond those currently in place. And foremost in those guidelines should be the principle that the most qualified person for the job gets the job.
The Under-Effective Mid-Level Manager
At an informal gathering some time back, the subject turned to work. "I am so over my job", one woman intoned. "If my boss asks me one more time exactly what it is I do, I'm going to scream". "I know what you mean", another says. "To say my boss is an idiot is an insult to idiots everywhere". A chuckle emanates from the corner of the room. "I've been with the same company for eight years - no promotion. Every time I mention it to my boss, I get the same song and dance about being patient, choosing my career path carefully, etc. We both know the real reason I haven't advanced: He's terrified that someday he'll be working for me."
The travails of the American worker have been documented in comic strips like Dilbert, TV shows and movies (The Office, Office Space), and books like Working (People Talk About What They Do All Day and How They Feel About What They Do), by Studs Terkel. Lost in these sometimes witty, often dour tomes is a key to exactly why so many working people feel so disenfranchised, so interchangeable, so unappreciated. Having been the beneficiary of years of anecdotal evidence of this condition, I believe I have identified at least one area in glaring need of examination: the Under-Effective Mid-Level Manager, or MLM.
I've chosen to call them under-effective, as opposed to ineffective because - technically speaking - any manager that successfully performs any of their assigned duties is effective. A manager that spends his days tracking his personal stock portfolio and perusing YouTube videos of his favorite singer, but still manages to sign off on employee timesheets at the last minute, is effective - to some degree. A broken clock, as they say, is right twice a day. The problem with these MLM's is that they are often incompetent, apathetic, and in some cases, downright insubordinate.
As with any group, these MLM's tactics and tendencies lend themselves to easy categorization:
The Buddy: Wants to be liked. More than anything. Often promoted from within, the Buddy cannot understand why she cannot still be friends with her former peers. She is, after all, trying really hard to be fair, to be nice to her employees. She can relate to them because she was once one of them. Or, if not promoted from within, the Buddy wants you to know they paid their dues, just like you. The Buddy likes to tell you about how they'll never ask you to do anything they wouldn't do themselves, right before they suggest organizing a company Wii Bowling league. They'll host. And provide refreshments. It's no problem. Really.
The Company Man: Obviously, loyalty to the company is one of the qualities one would hope to find in a MLM, but the Company Man follows this dictum to a fault. His allegiance knows no bounds, as he blindly trumpets the company platitudes. Always the first in the office, and the last to leave, he seldom takes a vacation and the term sick day simply isn't in his vocabulary. He attends all company sponsored functions, and volunteers for many. Unfortunately, the Company Man holds his subordinates to the same lofty goals he's set for himself, and often finds them lacking in some regard or another. As a result, his department becomes a revolving door as those who toil for him fall by the wayside, having been measured and found wanting. You just can't get good help these days, the Company Man muses. This type of MLM lacks the ability to see things from his employee's perspective, or he would see what many of his erstwhile employees have: loyalty is a two-way street, allegiance should be tempered with common sense, and if you raise the bar too high, no one will climb over it.
The Dictator: Is going to ensure you know he's the boss, right off the bat. And don't you forget it. Ruling with an iron fist, the Dictator will not tolerate anything that remotely resembles a challenge to their authority. With a wave of their mighty arm, the Dictator will issue some edict that you will commit to memory posthaste. Drunk with power, the Dictator cannot fathom the notion they could ever be wrong about anything. Needless to say, they will not solicit, much less entertain any suggestions from their lowly underlings, because they are the boss, and you're not. How could you possibly know what's best for the department? Aside from the obvious downside to having a person this authoritative in a position of responsibility, one can safely assume that valid observations and feedback from below will never reach the ears of upper management (see: The Doberman).
The Doberman: Exists solely to shield their boss from unpleasantness. The mantra of the Doberman's direct report is "don't bring me a dead cat", or in other words, if there's a problem, you deal with it. I don't want to hear about it. There could be open rebellion in the workplace, with employees resigning, or threatening to resign, but the Doberman will steadfastly refuse to even admit there's a problem. Problems, after all, smack of unpleasantness. Try to go over the Doberman's head and you'll feel the sting of those razor-sharp incisors. Eventually, you realize there's a tightly shut steel door between you and upper management, and - if you're like most employees - you just stop trying.
The Jellyfish: By far the favorite of most employees, because the Jellyfish will never, ever take a stand, make a command decision, or do anything likely to ruffle feathers or "rock the boat". The Jellyfish's employees could be playing wastebasket H.O.R.S.E. all day, sales could be down, productivity in the toilet, but the Jellyfish isn't going to assert his authority, preferring instead to saunter through the office, dodging balled up copies of last month's expense reports, and sheepishly suggest that maybe someone could "try and get a little work done". The Jellyfish's refusal and \ or inability to actually manage their group is especially frustrating and disappointing to the employee that genuinely wants to do a good job and have their efforts recognized.
The Neophyte: Often promoted from within the company, the Neophyte will initially embrace their responsibilities with wide-eyed enthusiasm, confident they are equal to the task. Unfortunately, the Neophyte is often ill-prepared for the position, due to a lack of people management skills and generally being untested under fire. Sure, they can fire off a meeting request, or put together a PowerPoint presentation with the best of them, but the burden of responsibility weighs heavily on them. Soon, the exuberance of being a new manager wears off, the reality of the situation grips them like an icy fist, and their self-confidence - and effectiveness - evaporates.
The Ostrich: Like their namesake, the Ostrich will bury their head in the sand at the slightest hint of a problem. Two employees want the same week off, and it's the end of the quarter when they're most needed. Flip a coin, do rock, paper, scissors, draw straws, just don't involve the Ostrich in it. They'll be in their office if you need anything. On second thought, they'll be busy. Really busy, so if you could just deal with it yourself, that would be great. Oh, and pull the door closed on your way out. Similar to the Buddy and the Jellyfish, what sets the Ostrich apart is that they don't even go through the motions of managing. Things will work themselves out. Eventually.
The Slacker: I once knew a woman whose boss was named Will. She also had a co-worker named Will, so to differentiate between the two, the employees referred to their boss as "Worthless Will". He would casually stroll into the office around 9:45, check his phone messages (and return the personal calls), take two-hour lunches, and typically duck out around 4:00 (to call on prospective customers, he said). The Slacker is clearly phoning it in. No challenge is too daunting, no problem too complex for him to completely ignore it. Unlike the Jellyfish and the Ostrich, the Slacker flaunts his inaction and apathy. After all, they don't pay him enough to actually care.
The Village Idiot: Here's a quick test to determine if you work for a Village Idiot. In any given situation, do they invariably chose the absolute dumbest course of action? Is every comment regarding their abilities followed by a punch line? Do you wonder aloud how they find their way to work every morning? Are you convinced your ninth-grader would make a better manager? Then my condolences to you. Not only is the Village Idiot supremely unqualified for the position they hold, they seem to shoot up the job ladder like a Roman candle. In fact, they'll probably make CEO some day.
Who's to blame?
It's easy to blame the under-effective MLM for their own shortcomings. But the proverbial buck does not stop there. Someone hired or promoted them, and that someone should be evaluating them on a regular basis. If a given MLM's department's turnover rate suddenly doubles or triples, it goes without saying that the MLM's manager will usually make a point to find out why, but clues to mismanagement by MLMs aren't always going to be that cut and dried. There are nonetheless red flags which should warrant the attention of upper management, but often don't. First and foremost, the MLM's job is to manage, not observe from the sidelines. To carry out the administrative functions associated with the position is one thing - and something many of the MLM's underlings could do themselves, if given the opportunity. The ability to take charge of a group or department, to make educated, informed decisions, to oversee the portion of the business over which they've been given dominion is another thing altogether.
What can be done?
At a time when many American businesses are experiencing all-time lows in sales, earnings and productivity, the knee-jerk response is often to layoff workers, cut hours and benefits, close offices and factories. I submit that before taking any of these measures, the first step should be to carefully re-evaluate their MLMs. Do they see their employees as valuable resources, to be nurtured, guided, and encouraged, or simply as an operating expense? Conversely, do they have the wherewithal to identify unproductive, incompetent, and apathetic employees, and the intestinal fortitude to deal with them in a professional, yet effective manner? If not, not only are they doing a disservice to the company in general, they are denying legions of job-seekers the opportunity to prove themselves.
Do they "play favorites"? Promoting and giving favorable performance reviews only to employees they like, or have things in common with? Are members of the "soccer-mom clique" or the "sports bar happy-hour gang" getting preferential treatment? Does the company have clearly defined goals and objectives for each employee, and are the employees being fairly measured by those goals and objectives? Do the MLMs (as well as upper management) grasp that every employee is different, that "one size does not fit all", that different people respond to different types of motivation, and desire different things from their employer? Does the company truly strive to promote from within, or is the express elevator to the top floor reserved only for those with flashy degrees from big name universities - but little real-life experience? Is the retention of quality employees one of the company's highest priorities, or does management merely pay lip service to the labor force?
What they want
As previously stated, different employees want different things. The DINK (dual income, no kids) may view opportunities for advancement as high on their priority list, while the single parent wants company subsidized daycare. Those approaching retirement are obviously concerned with their pension or 401K plan. But every employee wants to be appreciated, to have their efforts not just recognized, but rewarded. It should therefore be a goal of every MLM to be a liaison for their employees, to bring their concerns to management, and to take those concerns to heart.
I'm not suggesting that a company throw open the vault door and give the employees everything they desire. A business, after all, is not a democracy and the goal of every business is to make a profit, and as much profit as possible. But insuring that the lower tiers of management are not only competent and effective, but also compassionate, empathetic, and most importantly - genuinely concerned with growing and developing their labor pool to make it as productive and efficient as possible will go a long way in helping to achieve the company's goals.