3 Questions for Kevin Kennemer, founder of The People Group

Kevin Kennemer

Kevin Kennemer is founder of The People Group, an Oklahoma-based organizational consulting firm “founded on the premise that positive people practices are primarily the missing component of average performing companies.” Kevin also is a long-time friend of this blog and an emerging leader in calling for workplaces that are both humane and productive.

Over the years I’ve mentioned and linked many of Kevin’s blog posts and commentaries. I’m delighted that he kindly agreed to take a few questions about his work:

1.  Kevin, please tell us about why you created The People Group and describe its mission.

In December 2007, I left one of the largest privately-owned energy companies in the U.S. to start The People Group.  As the former chief human resource officer of this large energy concern, my department, along with many other fellow leaders and employees, helped create a best in class work environment. Unfortunately, we also had a few executive bossholes who were as toxic as a Cyanide cocktail.

After fighting for months to enlighten the CEO of the growing presence of toxic leadership, I was asked to move on. Seven months after my departure, the renowned mid-stream energy company filed for bankruptcy.

The positive and negative experience of this trying time allowed me to see how to create and destroy a great company.  Just like positive people practices create great companies, toxic leaders will eventually destroy an organization.

The People Group focuses on the best practices in culture formation. Great workplaces have a positive impact on employees, their families, business owners, and society.

2.  What are your plans for The People Group in 2012?

Continue working to create National awareness of the positive business benefits of creating positive company cultures, by 1) speaking to groups about the business necessity of creating great workplaces, 2) working diligently to acquire new clients to help make our message a reality on the ground at various workplaces, and 3) continue writing The Chief People Officer Blog and serving as an official blogger for SHRM’s Next Blog.

3.  How can we get businesses to take workplace bullying more seriously?

Although I would like to imagine that all human beings, including CEO’s, would want to build a team of employees without bullies, I realize this not the reality. Businesses are in business to make money. However, bullies cost companies a great deal of money by lowering productivity, increasing turnover, reducing the positive energy inside their department and simply sucking the life out of those around them.

The best way to reduce or eliminate bullying in the workplace is to show CEO’s the financial advantages of eliminating bullies and their toxic behavior. Enlightened self-interest is the best way to move this mountain.

If the CEO is a bully herself, there is not much hope for that company and I would recommend employees find a different place to earn a living.

***

Starting in 2012, “3 Questions for…” is a regular feature presenting short interviews with notable individuals whose work and activities overlap with major themes of this blog.

“Workplace bullying is bad for business”

Thanks to the Worcester Business Journal for soliciting and publishing this short op-ed piece, “Workplace Bullying is Bad for Business,” which ran last week.

Here’s the “takeaway” part of what I wrote:

Too many employers dismiss concerns about workplace bullying. According to a 2007 national survey by the Workplace Bullying Institute and Zogby pollsters, 62 percent of employers either ignored complaints of bullying or worsened the situations.

Nevertheless, employers that want to minimize the likelihood of bullying can take these three concrete steps:

1. Send a message that bullying is unacceptable. The message must come from the top. Specific measures include drafting and implementing policies related to workplace bullying, offering in-house educational programs and presentations, and using effective “360-degree feedback” systems to evaluate supervisors.

2. Empower HR to handle bullying situations fairly and forthrightly. One of the most common remarks from targets of bullying is how the human resources department is “useless” in handling complaints about bullying and, in some cases, turned out to be complicit with the bullies. Effective preventive and responsive measures by HR are key components of any anti-bullying initiative.

3. Remove destructive bullies. Even if an incorrigibly abusive individual happens to be key in attracting business, increased productivity through better morale and less time lost to the gossip mill may make this a sound decision from a purely cost-benefit standpoint.

What workplace bullying teaches us about the integrity of American employers

Ståle Einarsen, University of Bergen psychology professor and a leading authority on workplace bullying, once gave a conference keynote address in which he said, in effect, that rather than using our knowledge of employment relations to help us understand workplace bullying, perhaps we should use our knowledge of workplace bullying to help us understand employment relations.

I had his remarks in mind when I realized that if you want an ultimate test of an American employer’s integrity, examine how it responds to risks and claims of workplace bullying. Here’s why:

1. Limited liability exposure – Until the Healthy Workplace Bill or something like it becomes law, most American workers will not have a direct legal claim against their employers for workplace bullying, no matter how abusive the conduct and its effects. Accordingly, employers that choose to tackle workplace bullying pro-actively are doing so out of a commitment to their workers and to the resulting benefits in terms of productivity and morale.

2. Adopting and enforcing a strong policy – Currently employers are under no legal obligation to develop a policy concerning workplace bullying. An employer that adopts and enforces a policy is making a statement about its institutional culture, while potentially exposing itself to liability in the event of a violation. This is a big step to take.

3. Power differentials – Workplace bullying in the U.S. tends to be a top-down phenomenon, with supervisor-to-subordinate mistreatment being the most common combination. This is why workplace bullying is such a threatening topic to organizations and to individuals in charge: It often implicates the very power structure of a workplace. Thus, preventing and stopping workplace bullying requires a sincere, full-blown organizational commitment.

4. Investigation challenges – Although workplace bullying is frequent and destructive, conducting a fair and thorough investigation can be a difficult and challenging task. This is especially the case when the allegations involve behaviors of a more indirect nature.

In other words, workplace bullying challenges employers to do right by everyone, even if the liability risks are comparatively low, senior managers are among those whose actions will be reviewed, and investigating claims of bullying are difficult and time consuming. Employers that embrace these priorities and practices are special indeed.

Are HR professionals bullied at work?

If you want a job in which you won’t be subjected to workplace bullying, then perhaps the human resources field isn’t for you.

Pamela Babcock, writing for the Society for Human Resource Management’s Safety and Security blog (link here), reports on Dr. Teresa Daniel’s survey of 102 Kentucky HR professionals:

In an online survey of 102 HR professionals in Kentucky, 31.4 percent reported that they had been bullied at work. Behaviors included work interference or sabotage (42.4 percent), verbal abuse (33.3 percent), and offensive conduct such as threats and humiliation or intimidation (24.2 percent).

HR professionals reported being bullied at the same rates as other employees responding to recent surveys. However, an important finding was that over half (54.1 percent) of the bullied participants reported that they felt that the abuse was related to their role as an HR practitioner.

Why is this so?

Daniel then asked targeted individuals why they believed they were being bullied:

In follow-up interviews, 28 participants offered the following explanations as to why they felt HR is a target for bullying:

• HR must often tell managers “no.”
• The role is not fully appreciated and/or understood.
• HR is perceived by some as lacking business knowledge.
• HR practitioners sometimes lack professional credentials, education or “organizational fit.”
• Insecure managers might see competent HR professionals as a threat.

Babcock’s article closes with useful recommendations from Daniel and survey respondents on how HR professionals can deal with these situations.

Caught in the middle

As this survey confirms, when HR practitioners disagree with the wishes or decisions of senior management, they sometimes pay the consequences.

This especially may be the case when HR disagrees with management on personnel matters, and it can lead to being bullied. In a blog post titled “Can an ethical HR officer survive at a bad company?,” I concluded:

For HR practitioners who see their role solely as an extension of upper-level management, questions of how to treat the rank & file are easy to resolve: Go with what the bosses want, even if it means that someone gets screwed over or unethical behavior is swept under the rug. In cases of workplace bullying or sexual harassment, we know what this usually means.

Conscientious HR practitioners, however, face a dilemma when management philosophy and practice run squarely into the ethical treatment of workers. If they antagonize their bosses by doing the right thing, they, too, may find themselves on the firing line.

Quiet cover-ups

Several years ago, a young woman who was following developments concerning workplace bullying shared a personal story with me.

She once held a job as an administrative assistant, and her boss had been sexually harassing her. She described how his conduct was both verbal and physical, and in my view it likely constituted a hostile work environment in violation of employment discrimination laws. In addition, her boss was known for having harassed other young female employees.

She reported the harassment to the human resources director, who promptly told her there was nothing that could be done about her boss’s wrongful behavior. Instead, she was offered a lower paying position in a different department. Because she was relying on her employer’s tuition subsidy benefit for employees completing degree programs, she reluctantly accepted this less-than-ideal “resolution.”

Quiet cover-ups

When we contemplate cover-ups and corruption in organizations, we typically envision high-profile corporate and political scandals involving lots of money and/or power.

But quiet, more modest cover-ups, such as this one committed by a complicit HR director who protected a harassing boss and the organization from being held accountable, occur with much greater frequency. In these instances, those who opt not to file lawsuits in response to illegal behavior — often for understandable reasons – are left to cope as best they can.

A true test of institutional integrity is how an employer responds to complaints from workers near the bottom of the organizational chart who make credible reports of unlawful conduct. It is easy to bury these complaints — especially, for example, when the aggrieved party is a young woman who does not wish to make waves.

These ground-level corruptions, however, are indicative of an employer that lacks a commitment to ethical behavior. Is it an exaggeration to suggest that such an organization has the core potential to become the Enron of tomorrow?

The “exit parade” as a worker termination protocol

If you’re following the news these days, you’re no doubt seeing stories about more workers being laid off, sometimes in considerable numbers. Especially in office settings, many will be subjected to some form of “exit parade,” a swift, sudden, and brutal practice, defended on grounds of maintaining security.

Kevin Kennemer of The People Group recently summarized this standard layoff protocol (link here):

When a layoff occurs, an employee is provided a short explanation, an envelope with important employment separation and benefit documents, an empty box, and time to clean out their desk and say good-bye to their friends/coworkers.  The next moment the dazed employee is on the street, going home wondering what the future holds.

Oftentimes the stunned worker is escorted by a uniformed security officer, in view of colleagues and co-workers.

Primary and collateral damage

Layoffs are “a big kick in the gut to everyone involved,” notes Kennemer:

• The departing employees – definitely the hardest hit, including their families
• The surviving employees – afraid they might be next, plus the stress of doing more work with less
• The leadership team – must live with their decision that is affecting the lives of current employees, former employees and their family members

To that I would add that the manner in which people are laid off will reverberate throughout the organization. When conducted in a way that humiliates and demeans the affected workers, morale and institutional loyalty are likely to plummet.

A degradation ceremony

As I wrote in my first major law review article about workplace bullying and the law:

The likely humiliation of being paraded out of the office under guard or noticeable supervision, especially under the watch of coworkers, is, in effect, a degradation ceremony. It is similar in nature, though admittedly not in degree, to archaic military disciplinary proceedings where transgressors are marched past other soldiers under armed guard to face their punishment. Yet in the case of the dismissed employee, her sole “transgression” may have been being on the payroll at a time when profits were not high enough.

Unfortunately, this is an example of how cruelty has become commonplace. While the classic exit parade may not constitute workplace bullying as many of us have defined it, it surely ranks among the most inhumane of human resources practices.

A better way

More humane, employee-centered organizations will inform people of their last day of employment and allow them a bit of time to settle their business. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a pleasant experience, but at least an individual is not marched out of the building like a criminal.

When an employee is fired for misconduct or otherwise poses a safety risk, termination procedures may call for an added layer of security. However, when adopted as a standard protocol, variations of the exit parade only injure relations between workers and their employers. It’s a psychologically cruel practice that pours acid into a newly-inflicted wound.

***

Read the rest of Kevin Kennemer’s post for his ideas on how workplaces can move to a layoff-free employee relations policy.

Hiring decisions, hard times, and personal & institutional integrity

Employers, managers, and HR folks have a lot of power in an economy where jobs are hard to come by. Sometimes, the hiring decisions they make reveal something of their personal and institutional integrity, or lack thereof. For example:

A second chance

I have a friend, let’s call him “James,” who earlier this year was considering applicants for a position involving some responsibility. Because of the job market in his field and the place he works at, he was able to choose among many qualified candidates.

The applicant pool included a very talented young man who had lost his previous job because of a personal mistake. However, it appeared the man had learned from his transgression and was ready to fulfill his considerable promise. James decided to hire him.

James explained his decision as being one of self-interest, noting that his new hire was likely to be very successful. But knowing James, I have a feeling that an element of kindness played into it. He’s no pushover — he holds a managerial job that would consume someone with the makeup of a marshmallow — but his ability to make difficult decisions includes a big dollop of emotional intelligence and human understanding.

Unemployed need not apply

In the meantime, we’re seeing a pile of news articles documenting the refusal of some employers even to consider an application from people who are jobless, regardless of the reasons behind their unemployed status. For example, in a piece posted to AlterNet (link here), Nathan Birnbaum reports:

Numerous employers, staffing agencies and online job posting firms have adopted policies that explicitly deny employment to the unemployed. And they don’t even try to cover up their intent. The language in the qualification requirement sections of the ads leave nothing to the imagination: “currently employed,” “must be currently employed,” “currently employed on a permanent basis,” “must be currently or recently employed” etc. If you are none of the above, as 14 million Americans are, you’re out of luck.

The offending employers include some very familiar names:

Aside from companies and hiring agencies you may have never heard of, included in the list of prejudicial employers are Allstate Insurance, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, the Homebuilding Recruiters of America, the University of Arizona, the University of Phoenix, and the Oil and Gas Field Recruiters of America.Sony Ericsson only ended the practice after they were caught by CNN-Money last year during its reporting on this trend.

Golden Rule

Let’s compare the decision that James made, weighing all the circumstances and ultimately deciding to give someone a second chance, with the blanket policy of refusing to consider anyone who is unemployed. The situations are not completely opposite, but they provide us with interesting food for thought.

In a blog post last year, I suggested that we apply the Golden Rule on the job:

What would happen if we practiced the Golden Rule at work?

You know, that simple maxim we were taught as kids: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Or, more simply, treat others the way you would like to be treated.

In an employment setting, I cannot imagine a better application of the rule than with an individual who is a job seeker. If someone cannot identify with the challenges facing a fellow human being searching for work in a tight job market, then I suggest they shouldn’t be in a position to hire anyone. And when employers adopt this draconian, heartless policy, well, I question their institutional integrity.

Hopefully there are more folks like James making hiring decisions than there are companies like Allstate Insurance,  Enterprise Rent-a-Car, and the University of Phoenix. After all, if we want unemployed folks to get back to work, then we have to give them a chance to do so.

It’s not a “gray area,” it’s an alarm going off

I’ve been meaning to share Rick Bell’s superb post at Workforce Management‘s Ethical Workplace blog (link here), urging employers to take seriously behaviors that all too many dismiss as “gray areas” or “borderline”:

• The “familiar” physician who makes suggestive remarks to patients and staff.
• The prominent partner who kisses an associate and makes “friendly” but personal comments about her husband’s ethnicity.
• The utility executive known for a frosty demeanor and dismissive gestures in meetings held to review project issues and problems.
• The surgeon who yells at colleagues but never uses “illegal” racial, sexual or ethnic language.

All too often, Bell concludes, they end up costing organizations in big ways:

Over the years, I’ve run into leaders who have behaved poorly and then witnessed the disasters caused by their conduct: patient abuse and medical errors, financial collapses, environmental disasters, massive legal risk, safety lapses and the loss of vital and talented team members.

Bell urges employers to rename these gray areas, using terms such as “hazard” and “danger” to convey their true significance.

What bad organizations have in common (among other things)

Legal eagles will note that many of these behaviors do not often lead to the filing of lawsuits. And bad organizations often adopt a mindset that if it’s not obviously illegal, it’s not worth incorporating into training programs, including in employee handbooks, and addressing forthrightly when complaints arise.

Of course, some of these situations will elevate to liability risks. Equally important, they are costly behaviors that do not necessarily show up on the scorecard or stat sheet, to borrow sporting terms. Instead, they eat away — often quietly — at employee morale, loyalty, productivity, and retention. The “bottom line” impact may be difficult to quantify, but only the ignorant pretend there is none.

Gary & Ruth Namie’s “The Bully-Free Workplace” hits the bookstores

Gary and Ruth Namie’s latest book, The Bully-Free Workplace: Stop the Jerks, Weasels & Snakes from killing your organization (2011), is now available in a print edition and on the Amazon Kindle.

The Bully-Free Workplace is a guidebook for employers who want to prevent and stop workplace bullying, drawing upon the Namies’ years of experience and accumulated expertise in consulting with private, public, and non-profit organizations throughout North America.

This is a brisk, information-packed, no-punches-pulled read, intended for organizations that take these behaviors seriously and recognize that effectively addressing bullying at work requires ongoing commitment and, at times, tough decisions.

In strongly recommending this book, I once again must disclose my bias: I have worked with Gary and Ruth on workplace bullying initiatives for over a decade. They are colleagues and dear friends, and I have “blurbed” the book on its back cover.

That said, my endorsement is grounded in the deep respect I have for their understanding and wisdom. At a list price of $16.99, it’s an inexpensive and wise investment for executives, managers, human resources directors, board chairs, and other organizational leaders who understand that bully-free workplaces are a win-win for employers and workers alike.

Go here to access the website for the book.

What bad employers do: Treating job applicants and the unemployed like dirt

Finding a job in these recessionary times is hard enough, but what happens when employers decide to rub a little salt into the wound?

Don’t call us, we won’t call you

Katie Johnston Chase reports for the Boston Globe on the practice of employers treating job seekers shabbily (link here):

As their searches for employment stretch on, some job seekers are getting a rude awakening from the companies they apply to. Nearly a third of the executives surveyed online by search firm Korn/Ferry International said candidates aren’t being treated respectfully by prospective employers.

One of the most common complaints, adds Chase, is that “companies disappear in the middle of the hiring process, failing to let applicants know they didn’t get the job, even after multiple interviews.”

Refusing to hire the unemployed

Some of America’s less-than-wonderful employers (and staffing agencies, too) are refusing to hire the unemployed, even to the point of listing current employment as a requirement in job announcements. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency that enforces workplace discrimination laws, recently held hearings on this emerging phenomenon (link here) in light of possible discriminatory impact on older workers, women, and people of color.

For example, University of Colorado law professor Helen Norton was among those who testified:

(E)mployers and staffing agencies have publicly advertised jobs in fields ranging from electronic engineers to restaurant and grocery managers to mortgage underwriters with the explicit restriction that only currently employed candidates will be considered. “Some employers may use current employment as a signal of quality job performance,” Norton testified. “But such a correlation is decidedly weak. A blanket reliance on current employment serves as a poor proxy for successful job performance.”

Can’t find work? Too bad…at least if you’re in Michigan

It’s not just lousy employers who are out to punish the unemployed. At a time when there are not enough jobs to go around — let alone jobs that pay living wages — Michigan Governor Rick Snyder enthusiastically signed into law a six-week reduction in unemployment benefits for those without work, claiming this will spur job growth by minimizing the unemployment tax burden on employers.

Kick ‘em while they’re down

These dots connect. It’s all about kicking people while they’re down. It’s part of a culture of cruelty — or at least pathological insensitivity — towards those who could use some respect, a helping hand, and hopefully a job.