Adventures in HR Law

Time.com's recent article "Hertz Fires 26 Muslims For Refusing To Clock Out During Prayer Breaks" had me once again considering how my organization would handle a legal situation making the news. I will not profess to a great expertise in human resource law and I can safely say that not many human resource professionals will run the risk of making decisions involving the law without research and confirmation (often from the legal department). What I am very adept at is having a cache of resources from which I draw from. You have to be accurate when working within the confines of human resource law. Mistakes are costly. Have you ever spent some time looking around the offices of your organizations' legal team (or any legal counsel's office)? What do you see? Hoards of books. Research. Reference. Point made.

When faced with a situation that spills over into the law, I have found something that is a superb frame of reference from which to begin. It is something I took away from professional development in employee relations at Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations. The tool is called the HR Law Navigator. The Navigator works like a flow chart that, depending on the answers, guides you in identifying the categories of human resource law that may affect the outcome. The categories are: [employee] treatment, benefits, compensation, and safety. As you work through the Navigator you are posed a series of questions that act to zero in on the law(s) relating to the situation.

Although the Navigator does not seems to be offered outside of Cornell's professional development you can construct one by utilizing a similar format. Construct a flow chart that starts by asking top-level questions and then drills down. For example: the first question may be to "Identify Employee's Status" (e.g. Does situation involve an independent contractor or employee?). The next flow chart step may be to "Identify Organization's Status" (e.g. Where does employee work?; How many employees work at the organization?). You would then proceed to consider the various issues at play and then identify which category (or categories) and which law(s) the issues relate to. 

Make sure to consider any local and state laws that may apply to the situation, seek legal advice, and formulate a plan for follow-up for prevention. Try using Cornell University's searchable human resource library as a resource. In addition, save as favorites the web sites of various agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. Department of Labor, and links for local and state agencies.

The Mapping of the Law

In my latest quest to get more in touch with my creativity and in my continuing quest to satisfy my interest in all things human resource, I decided to combine the two pursuits into a mind mapping project. Mind mapping, a technique used to retain information through visual representation, was developed by brain and learning lecturer Tony Buzan. Mind Maps, as the official technique is referred, are used to "turn on" parts of your brain that you may not typically utilize when attempting to commit information to memory. Most people take notes and try to study those notes - according to the ThinkBuzan web site this is called "linear notation". Often, linear notation is ineffective and forces individuals to learn strictly by rote rather than establishing associations, meaning, and connection.

Check it out - it's actually a very interesting way to put thoughts down on paper and the result looks like something between a diagram and the spreading roots of a tree. Here's my attempt at mapping employee relations-related laws (click on the map to open a larger view):

Smiles and Frowns are Contagious

The October 2011 issue of SHRM's HR Magazine contains a short article by freelance writer Alice Andors entitled You Can Cry if You Want To. The article is written around several questions such as "Is it okay to cry at work?" and "Does crying at work damage a man's reputation more than a woman's?". You may be surprised at the answers (yes it's okay and no, the opposite is true). The article ends with an answer as to why human resource personnel may be observing more displays of emotion now: "The anxiety level is overwhelming today - anxiety about keeping up with change, parents aging, kids in college, job security, world instability. Tears and anger are byproducts of deep-lying fears and frustrations for both men and women." 

While no one can dispute these are challenging times, what has long been a source of contention is whether true expressions of emotion in the workplace are acceptable? Has the current state of things affected general consensus on the topic?  My view? I agree, in general, with what Andors indicates in the article though I would add this: expression of emotions are acceptable in the workplace so far as they are addressed positively and professionally. Let me explain. In times of stress, productivity may suffer as morale dives. If employees feel they must continually put on a pleasant facade, then the downward spiral of poor morale and dwindling productivity is only encouraged. Conversely, if an expression of anger (and we're not talking "throwing a chair into the vending machine anger", we're talking "I'm visibly upset and I want to address the issue with you anger") or of sadness is apparent - fulfill the role of the bartender. Listen, guide, and encourage.  

Is there a negative to being negative (e.g. displaying emotions construed as negative) in the workplace, though? In Managing Emotions in the Workplace: Do Positive and Negative Attitudes Drive Performance?, Wharton School professor Sigal Barsade's findings are discussed. 

If the company is losing money and experiencing the effects of downsizing, should the manager, feeling stressed and overwhelmed, convey his despair to his workers? Or should the manager try to appear cheerful and act as if nothing is wrong? Barsade says it's possible for the manager to convey emotions that are both authentic and positive, saying something like, "I know you're worried. Things aren't looking good, but you know, we have a way out of this and we can work [on it] together." The employees will appreciate the honesty and take comfort in the optimism, she says. 

Are You Turning The Key In The Right Direction?

Being in the field of education and loving TED as I do (see post from September 6th), I felt compelled to view one of the most popular talks on TED. It is a talk given by Sir Ken Robinson, creativity expert and author, on the topic of how schools kill creativity. The talk is quite entertaining and interesting so take a few moments to watch it. What I found most interesting about the talk and in reading over some of Robinson's work, is the connection between education and human resources. Now, in this circumstance, I am using the term human resources to mean humans as a resource. I make the clarification because I think we, as human resource professionals and managers from all walks of life, forget that is the general scope of what the profession deals with. 

The education, in all manners (e.g. formal, organization-driven, on-the-job, etc...) of human resources is integral to moving forward in any business. The following quote by Robinson in his book Out of Our Minds: Learning to be Creative sums it up nicely:

It is often said that education and training are the keys to the future. They are, but a key can be turned in two directions. Turn it one way and you lock resources away, even from those they belong to. Turn it the other way and you release resources and give people back to themselves. To realize our true creative potential - in our organizations, in our schools and in our communities - we need to think differently about ourselves and to act differently towards each other. We must learn to be creative.

How is your organization supporting education, training and development, creativity? Are you unintentionally marginalizing the talents of your employees by utilizing a "one size fits all" training program? Is your training program designed such that instead of proving flexible training and open access to resources it forces employees to mold themselves into the construct of the program and cuts off open access, thereby "turning the key the wrong way"?