Archive for the ‘Law Office Management’ Category
What a choice. We have written before about incivility in the workplace and that sounds a lot like what these researchers are calling ostracism. To begin, let’s look at how the researchers define both harassment and ostracism. In brief, say the researchers, harassment is the presence of an unwanted behavior and ostracism is the absence of a wanted behavior.
The term harassment is used by these researchers to “capture a range of active verbal and nonverbal behaviors directed at a target that derogate or cause embarrassment to that target. Harassment (unlike ostracism) engages the target in a social dynamic with negative social attention and treatment.” Harassment is typically composed of direct verbal and nonverbal behaviors intended to demean, harm, minimize, embarrass or harm the target.
The term ostracism describes the opposite of harassment where the workplace colleagues “disengage a target with a lack of attention and treatment”. In other words, colleagues may “ignore your greetings, exclude you from invitations, stop talking when you attempt to join a conversation” and so on. Ostracism often stems from many different motives, including obliviousness of the actor and are not always intended to cause harm.
You may be thinking what many people think of when introduced to the concept of incivility in the workplace. It is very subjective. What I see as obliviousness on the part of a colleague, you may see as ostracism or a deliberate effort to undercut you. So these researchers decided to look at two things: one, do people see harassment or ostracism as more harmful and, two, are they right? The results are consistent with the bulk of research on incivility.
In the first study, researchers asked 100 online participants (44% male, average age 32.64 years, average workplace experience of 5.29 years) what they thought more harmful in the workplace, harassment or ostracism? It is likely not surprising that the participants thought harassment more harmful and more inappropriate than ostracism in the workplace. Based on this finding, the researchers wondered whether ostracism was more common than harassment at work, and which (harassment or ostracism) is more damaging to careers.
In the second study, 1,300 working adults with demographics similar to the US population (49% male, average length of time in workplace 7.52 years) were asked to complete a number of measures (on ostracism, harassment, sense of belonging, personal well-being, and work-related attitudes) as well as some demographic information (e.g., gender and how long they had worked for their current employer). In this study, the researchers found ostracism more common than harassment, and perhaps surprisingly (if you are unfamiliar with the research on incivility) ostracism resulted in more negative physical and emotional symptoms, and more work-related negative attitudes to study participants than did harassment.
The third study used 1,048 staff members at a large university in Canada (26% male, average age 43.49 years, and average employment length of 11.59 years). This study supported the results of the second study. Ostracism was “more strongly related than harassment to employees’ sense of belonging, well-being, and work-related attitudes, and, more important, to employees’ actual turnover within three years. [The researchers define these as ‘harm’ but it is still a pretty subjective assessment.]
In short, say the researchers, workplace ostracism has more harmful effects than workplace harassment! They are quick to say they do not mean that harassment is not harmful, as it obviously is. Ostracism is particularly toxic and is much more prevalent and thus erodes away the target’s well-being.
With regard to the workplace, and particularly the law office–managers are likely to be more attuned to the presence of harassment and much quicker to intervene against such illegal and inappropriate behavior. This research, as well as the bulk of the research on incivility, says that organizations should also take the more prevalent situation on workplace ostracism seriously as well. A healthy workplace allows room for everyone and teaches communication and conflict resolution skills that manage tension and allow work to proceed efficiently.
O’Reilly, J., Robinson, S., Berdahl, J., & Banki, S. (2014). Is Negative Attention Better Than No Attention? The Comparative Effects of Ostracism and Harassment at Work Organization Science DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2014.0900
We’ve written about women and leadership before. While some new research shows female leaders handle stress more effectively than male leaders, we’re not going to write about that one today. Instead, here is a report on a study showing some other good news: women are no longer punished for behaving assertively in a leadership role!
It’s a positive change. The past research showed us that women who were assertive were seen negatively due to perceived violations of their gender role expectations. That is, men are assertive and women are sweet. And when women are not sweet, we call them witches (or something like that). So. The news that what these researchers call “agentic behavior” (i.e., acting like a leader) is now acceptable for women (as long as they are not aggressive and ruthless as they exhibit leadership behavior) is good news indeed.
Alas, though. Every silver lining seems to have a cloud and the battle is not yet won. As it happens, while women are now evaluated just as positively as men leaders for behaving assertively in their leadership role–women leaders who are tentative or submissive are rated much more negatively than are tentative or submissive men who lead. Leaders frequently fake their confidence and strength, but if a woman is seen as doing that, reactions they get are worse than those accorded to men.
The researchers used 185 participants (47% female, average age 28.3 years, either undergraduate students or graduates from an Australian university) who were told they were participating in a study on effective communication. The participants read a transcript of a speech (on climate change) which was identified as being given by an Independent (non-party-affiliated) candidate for national office. They were told the speech was given by a female (Annette Hayes or Susan Hayes) or a male (David Hayes or Andrew Hayes).
The speech itself was written in either an assertive voice (indicating dominance, confidence and strength) or a tentative voice (indicating deference, hesitancy, and a lack of confidence). After reading the transcripts, the participants rated the candidate’s likability and influence (i.e., how persuasive they were and therefore how likely to convince others of their position). They also rated the leaders on agency (i.e., how dominant, forceful and confident they were) and communality (i.e., how friendly, sensitive and warm they were).
Assertive female leaders were rated more likable than tentative female leaders but there was no difference in likability between the assertive and tentative male leaders. Further, while there was no difference in likability between assertive male and assertive female leaders, tentative males were more likable than tentative females.
Assertive female leaders were significantly more influential with participants than were the tentative female leaders. There was no difference in influence exerted on participants between the assertive and tentative male leaders. Further, while participants saw no difference in influence by the assertive women and assertive men leaders, they saw the tentative man as more influential than the tentative woman.
In other words, say the authors, women in political leadership will only be as effective as men if they are always confident, strong and decisive. When their behavior deviates from these male-stereotypic leadership ideals, they will be punished far more than their male counterparts. A follow-up study found the same pattern. The authors summarize their findings as follows:
“Based on men’s continued dominance in positions of power, expectations of women to show unwavering signs of confidence and strength will provide a considerable challenge. While a few women will be able to meet this expectation, the majority who cannot remain disadvantaged, with men avoiding similar penalties for equivalent non-agentic behaviors. Therefore, this subtle form of prejudice towards women demands our attention and effort if gender equality is to be achieved.”
It’s a societal double standard recently highlighted by Jon Stewart on the Daily Show. When male leaders display emotion– even inappropriate emotion– it is often celebrated. When women display even a little emotion, it is interpreted very negatively. It’s a good thing to keep in mind as you consider the behavior and leadership potential of male and female attorneys. We are all subject to bias– until we pay attention to it. Merely by being conscious of its potential, it can become a much smaller problem.
Bongiorno, R., Bain, P., & David, B. (2013). If you’re going to be a leader, at least act like it! Prejudice towards women who are tentative in leader roles. British Journal of Social Psychology DOI: 10.1111/bjso.12032
It is likely not a surprise to you that there is a significant public bias against the obese. Frequent flyers are familiar with the feeling of dread as a morbidly obese passenger approaches your row and seems to slow down. But fat bias doesn’t just happen in confined spaces. Workplace incivility is often directed at obese employees–referred to as employee adiposity in this research. Maybe that’s nicer than the other things it’s called.
As a reminder, incivility is rude, impolite or discourteous behavior that does not necessarily rise to the level of open hostility or aggression. Often used examples of incivility include things like not returning a greeting, interrupting a coworker when s/he is talking, failing to refill the empty printer after using up all the paper, and so on. In other words, rather than having a clear intent to harm (as with bullying), incivility is characterized by an ambiguous intent to harm. Therefore, the experience of incivility is at least somewhat dependent upon the target’s perception, and it is often harder to prove, especially if the target is not well liked. A circular problem.
The researchers conducted two studies, one with undergraduates and one with community adults who were employees. The two studies had many of the same findings but we are going to report the results of the community sample here. A sample of 528 community adults (53% female, 68% Caucasian, ranging in age from 20 to 63 years with an average age of 35 years, with tenure in current employment situation ranging from 6 months to 35 years with an average of 6 years, and 70% in non-management positions) was used. Participants provided their height and weight (from which researchers computed their BMIs) and demographic variables (such as sex and race) and also completed measures of workplace incivility, negative affect, burnout, and job withdrawal. And here are the (again, likely unsurprising) results:
Overweight individuals reported significantly higher levels of incivility than did underweight and healthy weight individuals. (Reported scores for incivility toward women were highest in the overweight and obese categories but highest for men in the underweight category!)
Black respondents reported significantly higher levels of incivility when they were underweight or healthy weight (this is surprising) but White respondents reported higher levels of incivility when they were overweight or obese. The researchers say that being overweight or obese is especially problematic for employees who are both white and female–the more overweight/obese–the higher the report of incivility.
Finally, there were links between adiposity and the respondents tendency to withdraw from their job emotionally. While the authors stress they are not blaming the victim, they recommend employers help employees reach and maintain healthy weights and thus have the resulting improvement in negative physical, psychological and professional outcomes associated with adiposity.
This is an interesting study for trial lawyers, law firms, and employers in general. They go beyond potential employment discrimination litigation, and offer a new approach to the evaluation of office culture. We all have biases we need to monitor and for organizations, paying attention to how we respond (directly and indirectly) to differences is a matter of both civility and liability.
Sliter KA, Sliter MT, Withrow SA, & Jex SM (2012). Employee adiposity and incivility: establishing a link and identifying demographic moderators and negative consequences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17 (4), 409-24 PMID: 23066694
We’ve written about this a lot both here on the blog and over at The Jury Expert. So it isn’t news to us, but evidently it continues to surprise experts in other fields. Business journals are still urging differing management strategies for members of different generations in the workplace. But, as in other research, today’s authors find their data does not support this popular recommendation. So we offer this research review in the hope that someone will bring it with them to work. Here we go again…
Researchers wanted to test three generational stereotypes in the workplace to see if data would support common assumptions. Specifically, they examined:
Whether Baby Boomers change jobs less often than Gen X or Millennials (“job mobility”);
Whether Baby Boomers comply more with workplace rules than do Gen X or Millennials (“compliance with work rules”), and
Whether Gen X members are either less motivated or lazy, thus less likely to work overtime than either Baby Boomers or Millennials (“willingness to work overtime”).
These are all common stereotypes (i.e., younger employees job hop, they do not comply with rules, and are unwilling to pull their weight if it’s inconvenient) and, stereotypes often exist for a reason. Sometimes it is due to facts. Other times it is due to the holder of the viewpoint being kinda grumpy and annoyed with the subgroup in question. But, other times, stereotypes simply do not accurately describe the nuances, or even the reality of situations.
The researchers used a huge sample of 8,128 people who applied for jobs at two different hospitals located in the southeastern United States. The sample was composed of Baby Boomers (N = 1,641, 20.2%), GenXers (4,972, 61.2%), and Millennials (1,515, 18.6%). On average, Boomers were 48.5 years old, GenXers were 30.8 years old and the Millennials were 21.5 years old (these are tilted toward the younger end in all 3 groups). The group was racially heterogeneous with 301 Native Americans (3.7%), 116 Asian/Pacific Islanders (1.4%), 237 Hispanics (2.9%), 3,955 African-Americans (48.7%) and 3,211 Caucasians (39.5%). A total of 308 (3.8%) did not disclose race. The sample was 83.2% female, 15.8% male and 1% did not disclose their gender. So, although each of these demographic cells is large enough for meaningful interpretation, the profile doesn’t perfectly match the national profile or the workforce. Asian and Hispanic participants are under-represented, African-Americans are over-represented, and it is a much more a female sample than a male sample. But with that said, a study this big allows for skewing like that without sacrificing validity.
As part of their application process, participants were required to complete a questionnaire on their historical workplace behaviors, and researchers used this data to identify their findings.
This research, unlike most prior research on generations at work, focused on historical job behaviors self-reported by the applicants (as opposed to a self-report of individual attitudes and values). While there were differences in the three areas assessed, the differences were small. The authors caution readers to understand that the typical recommendation to apply different management strategies to each separate generation in your workplace is likely not a good use of funds for improving your particular workplace. In other words, this study (of more than 8,000 people) did not support the idea that you should practice different management strategies for employees from different generations–the differences found were just too small statistically.
Here is what the researchers found about the common generalizations held about the various generations in the workplace.
Job mobility: Boomers actually do stay in jobs longer than GenXers and Millennials and it isn’t just that they are older and no longer moving about for their careers. On average, Boomers stayed at a job a bit more than 2 years longer than GenXers, and 4 years longer than Millennials.
Compliance with workplace rules: Older employees do have a slight tendency to adhere more to workplace rules concerning attendance and appearance. They also have less experience with having been fired (or quitting in lieu of being fired). However, this difference was not so much about generation per se as it was about age since individuals in all generations tended to comply more with workplace rules as they get older (and presumably matured).
GenXers will work less overtime: This one is also actually true (and we’ve written about how GenXers are actually living out their values). GenXers were less likely to work overtime than Boomers and Millennials. (There was no difference between the Boomers and Millennials in terms of a history of working overtime hours.)
The researchers emphasize that the differences in the target workplace behaviors don’t warrant different management strategies for different age groups. The differences are simply too small statistically. Instead, the researchers recommend that HR representatives build in flexibility to HR practices and strategies to address the needs of all employees rather than a single generational group. It’s what consultants often say when they are training managers about the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Good management is good management. You don’t tailor based on generation. You manage based on the individual and the demands of the job.
It bears repeating: Good management is good management. Stereotypes are not good management, even when well-intentioned.
Becton, J., Walker, H., & Jones-Farmer, A. (2014). Generational differences in workplace behavior Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44 (3), 175-189 DOI: 10.1111/jasp.12208
Maybe I shouldn’t have bothered. I spent thirteen years consulting with managers and nothing could turn them into anxious giggling adolescents faster than figuring out how to talk to an employee about offensive body odor. Somehow, it felt more “personal” than addressing issues like tardiness, inappropriate or disruptive behaviors, poor work performance, or the myriad other issues that arise when you are managing a diverse group of adult employees. Typically, a manager would get complaints from members of the person’s workgroup or their customers. They would seek advice on how to handle the situation, using words like “stinky”, “disgusting”, “gross”, “nasty”, “rude”, or “totally unacceptable”. We had to identify less emotionally laden words to describe the bad body odor (made worse by enclosed work spaces) in order to raise the manager’s comfort level with the difficult conversation, and to keep them from being either hurtful to the employee or sparking an outburst.
New research says maybe unpleasant body odor doesn’t disgust after all. Instead, maybe bad body odor elicits pity and makes people help the smelly person more. This certainly was not my experience over more than a decade of helping managers have difficult conversations. But, here is what the researchers found. First, you may wonder how they developed an “unpleasant body odor” for the research. They did not rely simply on not bathing or engaging in activities that resulted in profuse sweating. This was science. So, to mimic an unpleasant body odor, they soaked a T-shirt in a “solution of human sweat, beer, hydrogen sulfide, and fart spray”. Really. (They didn’t identify where they acquired the ‘fart spray’, which seems like a research design flaw to me.) And in between experiments, they checked the odor of the T-shirt to make sure everyone would have the same level of wafting scent (and added the stinky solution to the T-shirt as necessary).
For the first experiment, they had participants smell the T-shirt and asked them to imagine the T-shirt belonged to someone with whom they had to work. The participants then filled out reaction forms to the smelly T-shirt person. In this experiment, the researchers found that participants felt sorry for the smelly person and found them pathetic.
Thus the researchers knew an unpleasant body odor could evoke feelings of pity but wondered whether it would result in helping behavior. And it did. In the second experiment, the same smelly T-shirt was used and the research participants were seated next to a real person wearing the smelly T-shirt. They completed a maze task together and then were asked to privately assign how the “credits” for the experiment should be divided between the research participant and the smelly confederate. Those participants with a smelly partner assigned more credits to their partner than did those with a neutral (i.e., not smelly) partner.
For the third experiment, the participants were asked to wait for the confederate who arrived late for the experiment (wearing the smelly t-shirt). The researcher asked the smelly person why they were late and the person replied either that they “stopped because they wanted a drink” or they were late due to attending “a reception required by my department”. In this experiment, when the smelly person had chosen to go to a bar, they were awarded less credits than when they had gone to a mandated reception.
In other words, say the researchers, if you smell bad but it isn’t really your fault [because you had to go to a reception], others are going to help you.
If it is your fault though [because you chose to go to a bar and drink], they will probably not help you.
This is actually somewhat consistent with what I saw in the workplace. Over time, people would assume the person who smelled bad was either responsible or not responsible for the smell and would become increasingly resentful of the smelly person who was not in financial distress, mentally challenged, or mentally ill. They would give gifts to the financially distressed, mentally challenged and mentally ill of soaps, toothbrushes, shampoos and other personal hygiene items in the guise of seeing a great sale or having extras. And they would talk negatively with each other about those they saw as lazy, willfully disrespectful, or otherwise responsible for the body odor that followed them around and stuck to their co-workers in the enclosed work space.
What isn’t addressed is that the issue appears to be one of virtue, not odor. If people see others in distress, they are more likely to be critical if the distress is related to their own bad judgment. But if the person is troubled in some way, they are more likely to be given lee-way. It might have less to do with odor, and more to do with whether the person is seen as dishonorable, as opposed to impaired.
The challenge for litigation is to clean up the bad smell, or stigma, associated with the conduct at issue. Somehow, restore their dignity or virtue even in the midst of the conflict. Their flaws can be forgiven if the person is seen as “doing the best they can”, or if they demonstrate virtue in another situation (they volunteer at a soup kitchen, teach Sunday School, or donate to charitable efforts). If you can’t take the “smell” away entirely, the alternative involves explaining the offensiveness away by showing that the situation isn’t one of their intentional conduct.
You are more likely to get helping behavior from the jury if your client (who doesn’t quite pass the smell test) is seen as a victim of circumstances than the driver of bad (aka “smelly”) behavior.
Camps, J., Stouten, J., Tuteleers, C., & van Son, K. (2014). Smells like cooperation? Unpleasant body odor and people’s perceptions and helping behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. DOI: 10.1111/jasp.12203