Can neuroscience give us an accurate lie detector for employment disputes?

What if we had the use of a reliable, scientifically trustworthy lie detector test for determining who is telling the truth in employment disputes and litigation?

It’s possible that the field of neuroscience someday will provide a test for doing so.

The fMRI test

Clay Rawlings and Rob Bencini, writing in the current issue of The Futurist magazine published by the World Future Society, explore potential applications of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) tests for the purpose of detecting lies in legal proceedings:

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)—a technique for measuring and mapping brain activity—allows psychologists to observe the brain as it functions in real time. Two companies, No Lie MRI Inc. and Cephos Corporation, claim that they can use fMRI to determine conclusively whether or not an individual is telling the truth.

…This methodology should be foolproof: You either have a real memory, or you do not. If your answer is based in fantasy rather than memory, it is almost certainly a lie.

…At some point, this technology may replace random groups of 12 jurors as the “finders of fact.” We will know with certainty whether someone is telling the truth.

…If technology can tell us with scientific certainty whether a person is telling the truth, why not place a scanner above the witness stand? As witnesses testify, the court will be able to see in real time whether or not the testimony is true.

Applying the fMRI to employment disputes

I’ve written about how the tools of neuroscience can be used to measure post-traumatic stress disorder. For targets of workplace bullying and harassment, someday this test might be utilized to prove damages due to abusive conduct.

Perhaps the fMRI could play a similarly useful role in assessing truth telling in employment disputes, including those that have led to litigation.

Imagine a test that sorts truth from fiction when allegations of bullying, sexual harassment, and other forms of worker misconduct arise. For targets of these behaviors who have had the exasperating, painful experience of being ignored or regarded dismissively, this could be a way of getting to the heart of the matter.

Caution (lots of it)

But let’s not get carried away. Even putting aside expenses, we’re a long way from proclaiming the fMRI test as being sufficiently foolproof for routine use.

We have an excellent example of why caution is advisable: The most commonly recognized electronic “lie detector test” is the polygraph machine, which has a long history of usage in law enforcement settings. Furthermore, until the late 1980s, it was a popular pre-employment screening mechanism for prospective employees.

However, polygraph evidence has never been admissible in criminal proceedings, due to ongoing concerns about its reliability. Furthermore, after the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment raised severe doubts about the polygraph’s reliability as employee screening tool, Congress banned this use through the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988.

Therefore, we should regard the fMRI, or any other scientific test, with reasonable skepticism. Can it detect the lies of a psychopath? Will it falsely identify honest statements as being untrue? These are among the questions that must be answered.

For targets of workplace abuse, a genuine lie detector test may seem like a panacea. We’re not there yet, but perhaps someday scientific technology will deliver a solution.

***

Related posts

Brain science and the workplace: Neuroscience and neuroplasticity (2011)

In recovering from adversity, past adversity can fuel our resilience (2011)

Do organizations suppress our empathy? (2010)

Understanding the bullied brain (2010)

Bully Rats, Tasers, and Stress (2009)

Why concentrated power at work is bad (2009)

Should HR be eliminated?

Lauren Weber and Rachel Feintzeig, in a piece for the Wall Street Journal, examine an emerging trend of employers replacing their human resources departments with outsourced personnel management firms and even software programs that perform basic HR tasks:

Companies seeking flat management structures and more accountability for employees are frequently taking aim at human resources. Executives say the traditional HR department—which claims dominion over everything from hiring and firing to maintaining workplace diversity—stifles innovation and bogs down businesses with inefficient policies and processes. At the same time, a booming HR software industry has made it easier than ever to automate or outsource personnel-related functions such as payroll and benefits administration.

Misguided cheers?

From those who have had terrible experiences with an HR office, I can practically hear the (understandable) cheering. Eliminate HR, and you’ve taken care of the problem.

But it’s not that easy.

In fact, Weber and Feintzeig go on to examine the functions that may fall through the cracks by closing down the HR office, including ensuring that managers comply with employment laws and resolving interpersonal disputes between employees.

In a post for Workplace Prof, law professor Charles Sullivan (Seton Hall) largely concurs with the assessment of the potential downsides:

While outsourcing many of the mechanical operations of HR is much easier today with technological advances, it remains true that both managing “human resources” and complying with the law requires a more sophisticated understanding of both than a typical outside firm can provide.

The real culprits

Long-time readers know that I can be hard on HR, especially HR offices that are complicit in advancing bad, unfair, or abusive management practices. But when it comes to acknowledging the importance of an in-house office charged with implementing employee relations policies and practices, I see the HR function as essential.

Good HR offices serve a valuable training, compliance, and mediating role in the workplace. They do so with a much better understanding of the organization’s people and culture than any outside firm could provide. And they can troubleshoot issues over pay and benefits better than any software program.

Bad HR offices, by contrast, are often tools (negative connotation intended) of bad executive leadership. HR offices may get the lion’s share of blame for poor handling of employee relations, but in reality they may simply reflect and advance the values of their equally terrible (or worse) bosses. Show me a nasty HR director and I’ll show you the organization’s nasty CEO.

In some workplaces with lousy top leaders, “rogue” HR officers with conscience and heart may serve a mitigating presence by helping to stave off or soften the impact of bad personnel decisions and practices that reduce morale and increase liability risks.

As I’ve suggested before, to get to the core of what makes for a good or bad place to work, we typically need to look higher up on the organizational chart. The character and values of those at the top commonly dictate the kind of HR office that you can expect to encounter.

***

Related posts

HR, workplace bullying, and the abandoned target (2013)

Quiet cover-ups (2011)

Can an ethical HR officer survive at a bad company? (2010)

Don’t assume that HR is your buddy (2010)

“HR was useless” (2009)

HR, workplace bullying, and the abandoned target

It’s a recurring story, but sadly worth sharing: A worker who is enduring severe bullying at work confides in a human resources professional and spells out in detail everything that is going on. The HR person seems to be truly listening, nodding at the right times, and exuding concern and empathy when tears flow. At the end of the meeting, the HR person promises to get back to the employee, perhaps with a report or a follow up plan of action.

A few days or weeks later, the HR person responds with a meeting or memo in which the bullied employee is told that they’ve found no inappropriate behavior. The response may include any number of lies or distortions. In some cases, the tables will have turned, and it will be the targeted worker who is feeling scrutinized.

Earlier this week, I heard from someone with a story largely along the lines described above. For various reasons, I trust the individual who provided it. This person even had some legal issues worth raising, which sadly isn’t the case in many bullying situations.

For me this was the latest example of a bullying target being tossed under the bus, with HR supporting their demise.

The role of HR

Unfortunately, HR is often complicit in some of the worst workplace bullying situations. As I wrote in one of this blog’s most popular articles:

In good and bad workplaces alike, HR answers to top management, not to individual employees.  Too many well-meaning team players have learned that lesson painfully, thinking that a seemingly empathetic HR manager is a sort of confidante or counselor. There are plenty of good, supportive HR people out there, but ultimately their job is to support the employer’s hiring and personnel practices and interests.

To tease out this point, here’s one way to look at things when it comes to bullying at work and HR:

  • Good workplace + good HR = Ideal combo, bullying reports likely to be treated fairly. In addition, workplace bullying is much less likely to occur in such organizations.
  • Good workplace + bad HR = Bullying is still less likely to occur, but when it does, HR may impede a just response, while keeping management out of the loop.
  • Bad workplace + good HR = Lousy organizations are petri dishes for bullying. It’s not good for the target or HR. In fact, HR may be bullied if it rallies to help the target.
  • Bad workplace + bad HR = Situation very likely hopeless.

If the workplace is unionized, the presence of a supportive union may help to mitigate the harm wrought by bad companies and bad HR. But if a union is in cahoots with bad management, or otherwise doesn’t take bullying seriously, it creates yet another obstacle and threat for the target.

These are the difficult realities of workplace bullying, HR, and organizations, but they must be grasped by targets in order to assess their situations with clarity and understanding.

***

Related posts

1. Are HR professionals bullied at work? (2011) — Independently-minded HR officers can be potential bullying targets.

2. Quiet cover-ups (2011) — When HR is complicit in covering up bad behavior.

3. Can an ethical HR officer survive at a bad company? (2010) — A very challenging question.

4. SHRM opposes workplace bullying legislation (2010) — Very disappointing.

5. Don’t assume that HR is your buddy (2010) — HR plays a vital role in the workplace, but workers should not mistakenly regard HR as their ally.

6. “HR was useless” (2009) — Understanding the purposes & loyalties of HR.

Dylan’s Candy Bar not so sweet to us, workers say

Workers at Dylan’s Candy Bar in Manhattan, the flagship location of a small chain of boutique candy stores opened by Dylan Lauren (daughter of fashion designer Ralph Lauren), are going public with their efforts to challenge low pay and erratic, part-time work schedules. Their claim: A store that serves as a “required stop” for celebrities and entertainers such as “Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen, Katie Holmes, Janet Jackson, and Madonna,” with annual revenues around $25 million, isn’t all that interested in meeting with its workers to discuss their concerns.

After rebuff, a public petition

The workers have posted a public petition to build awareness and support:

Most of us started at less than $10/hour, with some of us even making as low as $8.50. We’re supposed to get annual reviews for raises, but they often forget to give us those.

On top of the low wages, our schedules and hours change week to week. Nearly the entire sales staff is part time, yet they expect us to have open availability, making it nearly impossible for us to juggle other obligations such as second jobs, school, and family. They refuse to give us any guarantee of the amount of hours we will work each week, and yet they get angry with us when we look for a second job.

. . . Unfortunately, when we got together to deliver our own petition to management, they shrugged it off. Ignoring our concerns, they simply told us that any issues regarding compensation could only be addressed in one-on-one meetings with managers and not together as a group.

The company’s willingness to meet only in one-to-one meetings is telling: It speaks of a divide-and-conquer (or perhaps divide-and-intimidate) approach, one that also makes it harder for workers to claim the protections of federal labor laws. These laws extend to employees engaged in “concerted activities for mutual aid and protection” but do not apply to employees acting solely as individuals.

The workers have reached out to the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU). This is the latest evidence of an emerging movement coming from members of America’s low-paid retail workforce, and it couldn’t come at a more important time.

Maybe Dylan’s unpaid HR intern can lend insights

It appears that Dylan’s employee relations philosophies apply to its interns as well. Earlier this year, Dylan’s posted a long announcement seeking an unpaid intern for its human resources department:

We are looking for a Human Resources Intern to join our team. The right candidate will be exposed to a dynamic and exciting opportunity for learning and growing in all disciplines in the Human Resources body of knowledge.

. . . Compensation: This is an unpaid internship, MetroCard will be provided

Among the minimum requirements was this ironic nugget: “Knowledge of the US labor regulatory environment and reporting requirements related to Human Resources.” Of course, an intern with such knowledge might rightly comprehend that the unpaid internship, with its long list of anticipated duties, probably violates minimum wage laws, as this U.S. Department of Labor fact sheet suggests. (A New York federal district court’s June decision on a lawsuit against Fox Searchlight Pictures provides further illumination on that point.)

Hmm, even with the huge, generous perk of a MetroCard, if I was the intern, I’d be giving serious consideration to joining the rest of the workers in circulating the petition.

“Can we help you with the problems we caused?” The ironies of employee assistance and wellness initiatives

Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) and employee wellness programs are among the features of many contemporary workplaces, especially larger organizations that are in a position to devote time and money to extended human resources operations. They can serve useful roles in creating healthier, more productive workplaces and in helping workers with personal problems and challenges. Many are staffed by dedicated, trained EAP and wellness practitioners.

In less-than-wonderful workplaces, however, EAPs and wellness initiatives can play an ironic role: They exist in part to deal with the dysfunctional and unhealthy aspects of the organization itself.

Briefly explained…

EAPs are designed to help workers deal with personal problems that may impact their job performance and health. They may include providing advice and consultation, short-term counseling, and referrals to other care providers.

Common employee wellness initiatives may include anti-smoking counseling, exercise classes, weight control assistance, and mindfulness programs.

But what if…

So here’s the rub: What if the problems and challenges that lead workers to contact an EAP or partake in a wellness program are triggered by work-related stress or even mistreatment?

I’m not talking about the everyday stress that is part of many jobs. Rather, I’m referring to acute situations that can be attributed, at least in significant part, to bad management, interpersonal abuse (such as sexual harassment or workplace bullying), and unhealthy organizational cultures.

For example, what if a worker is contacting the EAP because she’s being sexually harassed by her boss? What if a worker enrolls in a smoking cessation program because undue stress created by a dysfunctional work situation has fueled a nicotine habit?

“It’s all about you”

These scenarios highlight the limits of EAPs and wellness programs: The focus is typically on the individual. However well meaning and helpful at times, they often are constrained in addressing systemic problems that may prompt someone to seek help.

To draw on the examples above: What will an EAP director do if an alleged serial sexual harasser is the same person who hired her? If participants in a smoking cessation program repeatedly complain about work-related stress, will the program coordinator be able to raise concerns about an unhealthy organizational culture?

I’m not suggesting that we get rid of EAPs and wellness programs because of these inherent limitations; quite the contrary. However, I am very curious to know how many dysfunctional, unhealthy organizations look like pure gold on paper because they offer these useful benefits, without addressing some of the internal, core reasons for why their workers access them.

Ethical failure at Rutgers: Abusive coach, bad management, questionable lawyering

Last week, Rutgers University men’s head basketball coach Mike Rice was fired after videotape of his ongoing verbal and physical abuse toward his players went viral. The video is a compilation of Rice at practice sessions, repeatedly yelling at his players (including loud profanities and homophobic slurs), aggressively grabbing and pushing them, and firing basketballs at them.

Rutgers athletic director Tim Pernetti reportedly knew of the behaviors as early as last summer.  He saw the videotape late last fall, and — after obtaining legal advice and consulting with Rutgers president Robert Barchi — gave Rice a slap on the wrist by suspending him for three games and imposing a fine.

However, the story resurfaced last week when the videotape went public. Suddenly, Rutgers found itself under a barrage of media attention, leading to a quick domino effect: At a Friday press conference, President Barchi said that he saw the video for the first time when the story was breaking and ordered Pernetti to fire Rice. Following Rice’s termination, Pernetti resigned amidst cries for his departure. Rutgers general counsel John Wolf also was shown the door. (Barchi, the guy at the top, still retains his job as of this writing.)

Ethical systems failure

The details continue to surface, so it’s likely that more information will flesh out the story of how this abusive coach managed to avoid termination until Rutgers had no other choice. But even with what we know, it’s clear that Rutgers mishandled the situation at every level.

Bullying coach

After watching the video several times and reading a lot of the news coverage, it’s obvious to me that Mike Rice is much more than your stereotypical over-the-top coach. He’s got a hair-trigger temper, he’s verbally abusive, and he sees nothing wrong with physically assaulting his players. (For portions of the videotape, Google “Mike Rice Rutgers video” and get some choices.)

Guys like this should not be coaching.

John Baldoni, writing for Forbes, quickly put Rice’s behavior in the context of workplace bullying — even citing studies by the Workplace Bullying Institute — and urged employers to watch the Rice video:

Every senior executive needs to watch the video of former Rutgers basketball coach Mike Rice verbally and physically abusing his players during practice.

…Fear of the boss, coupled with the belief that management will not listen, cows employees into silence and so it is up to executives who want to do the right thing to initiate anti-bullying policies that ensure the protection of employees and the banishment of bullying.

Bad management

Departed athletic director Pernetti, the point person in the university’s handling of the situation, is a Rutgers graduate and a true believer in his alma mater‘s sports program. It’s likely that he was too invested in that devotion to render a sensible decision when Rice’s behavior and the videotape were brought to his attention.

However, there’s plenty of responsibility to go around, as Tim Eder reports for the New York Times:

But Mr. Pernetti is hardly the only person who watched the edited video and still approved of keeping Mr. Rice on staff until last week. The athletic department’s human resources and chief financial officer saw the video, as did the university’s outside legal counsel. At least one member of the board of governors saw it. Robert L. Barchi, the university president, has said he did not see it before last week, although at least one of his senior directors asked him to watch it.

Questionable lawyering

At the lengthy Friday press conference, Rutgers senior officials explained that in the fall, they consulted their legal counsel about how to handle the Rice situation. While perhaps engaging in some buck-passing, it is obvious that they felt they received bad advice. After speaking with their lawyers, the officials believed that Rice could be retained with the mild discipline imposed. (No doubt this informed their decision to relieve their general counsel of his duties when the story went viral.)

We don’t know the exact conversations between Rutgers officials and their lawyers last fall, but had Rutgers been my client, and even had I believed they could technically defend a decision not to fire Rice, I would’ve told them to consider the big downside risks of the light discipline they ultimately imposed (brief suspension, fine). Those risks would include future legal ramifications and creating a public perception (in this case, an accurate one) that they were sweeping abusive behaviors by their basketball coach under the rug.

In no way would that client have left the conversation without knowing my clear belief that terminating the coach was the better decision, planted on the ethical high ground.

It’s not just Rutgers

Rutgers couldn’t respond decisively and ethically to mistreatment that easily justified termination. Unfortunately, this institution is far from being alone. It simply got caught in a massively public way.

In organizations big and small, prominent and anonymous, abusive behaviors occur all the time — routinely protected, ratified, and even encouraged by a management structure that somehow doesn’t understand the human and institutional costs.

The sooner we understand that Rutgers represents a significant minority of organizations that have difficulty doing the right thing, the better we’ll comprehend the nature and impact of bullying and related behaviors at work.

Does research on predicting bullying behaviors by kids yield insights for identifying future workplace aggressors?

ppm-150

In a recent column for Yahoo! Shine, Barbara Greenberg summarizes a study by Douglas Gentile and Brad Bushman, published in the journal Psychology of Popular Media Culture, that identifies six “risk factors that predicted future aggression and bullying behavior” in kids:

1. A tendency toward hostility

2. low parental involvement

3. gender with boys being more likely to be physically aggressive

4. a history of physical victimization

5. a history of prior physical fights

and

6. media violence exposure.

Here’s how the study was conducted:

The study by Gentile and Bushman looked at 430 children ages 7-11 in grades 3-5 from 5 Minnesota schools. For this study, children and their teachers were surveyed twice in a year – usually six months apart. Physical aggression was measured using self-reports, peer nominations, and teacher reports of actual violence.

Any relevance to workplace bullying?

The question of identifying likely workplace aggressors comes up more than occasionally in discussions about preventing bullying at work.

However, most of the popular and academic literature examining aggressors at work focuses on actual behaviors rather than identifying risk factors. There definitely are research opportunities in this realm.

Furthermore, workplace bullying tends to be in the form of psychological rather than physical abuse, so practically speaking it’s less likely that there will be a documented record of prior risk-level behaviors. Even if such a record exists, it is improbable that it will be shared among stakeholders in a position to act preventively, given standard human resources practices and confidentiality/privacy issues concerning employee evaluations.

Equally important is whether employers would even want to be able to “profile” candidates for hiring and promotion based on their supposed propensity to engage in abusive mistreatment of co-workers. Various commercially marketed personality tests may help to identify certain counterproductive traits, but their reliability as pre-employment screening devices is highly questionable.

It’s a topic rife with complications, much different from school situations.

***

Although the full journal article is not freely available, go here for the posted abstract:

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,337 other followers

%d bloggers like this: