There are many good reasons to establish an Emotional Intelligence culture in your workplace. It helps with stress (Wall Street Journal, March 2003); helps you attract and retain the best employees; is a buffer against mobbing and hostile workplace; facilitates individual performance and team work (Goleman, Ph.D.); enables leaders; is highly correlated with better sales (Seligman, Ph.D.); relates to honesty, authenticity and ethics; increases creativity and flexibility for better coping with the velocity of change; helps employees communicate better; and can keep you from getting sued (Surgery, 2002).
RISK MANAGEMENT
Did I say the magic word? “Sued”? Now that I have your attention, yes, an emotionally intelligent culture in your workplace can help keep you from being sued, and can also help you should your worst nightmare occur, and you’re before the jury. But why wait until then?
According to Joni E. Johnston, Psy.D., in her article, “Inside the Mind of a Juror: The Psychology of an Employment Lawsuit,” her years of serving as consultant and expert witness during employment litigation have given her some shrewd insights into how jurors think.
Jurors are people like you and me, just in a different setting. They’ve worked in offices, they’ve been managed and they have managed others, they’ve kept their eyes open, they’ve been around the block a few times. And, of course, those empanelled on the defense’s side will likely have been mistreated at work. But once they become not Tom and Christophe and Mei, but “jurors in an employment litigation,” they tend to have certain presumptions you need to know about.
As you read through the data, you’ll see a thread here – a thread of responsibility. Jurors expect the company to care about their employees, to be proactive, and to do the right thing.
AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION IS WORTH A POUND OF CURE
Researchers found jurors care how the company responds to sexual harassment complaints, but they’re even more interested in how the event occurred in the first place. They aren’t that impressed that you responded when an incident occurred because you’d be a fool not to. What jurors want to know is – did you care before? Did you educate staff and establish policies and procedures discouraging discrimination, for instance? (Gallipeau, Dan R., Jurors’ Views of Sexual Harassment in 2001, New York Employment Law Practice, May 29, 2001).
Just as we ask “What kind of person is she?”, jurors are trying to find out “What kind of company is this?”
DON’T SWEEP IT UNDER THE RUG
“Jurors want you to do the right thing – promptly, consistently, thoroughly and fairly,” says Johnston. We all would like to be in an atmosphere where the people in charge care about people and do the right thing.
Jurors consider a previous accusation, even years before, to have put the company on notice and they expect the company to have responded. If you ignore a first accusation, and another complaint comes up, it’s an indication of your “tendencies.”
Dr. Johnston adds that even the most casual remark, anywhere, to anyone, is “notice” for jurors. Therefore, if you get a complaint, don’t ignore it even if the person was drunk and told you at the company picnic.
WHO’S ON TRIAL HERE?
Jurors don’t like it when the victim goes on trial. Don’t badger the employee when they report the incident (“Didn’t you two date each other last year?) and don’t badger them on the witness stand (“Why would they fire only you?”) Johnston says jurors don’t like defenses that focus on the “bad employee,” because it’s the company that’s on trial. Don’t “turn” on the employee who makes the complaint, and don’t build your case by attacking the plaintiff.
PUNISH THE GUILTY PARTY
Employees and jurors believe that with rank comes privilege and also responsibility. They hold the manager and the boss to a higher standard. They’ll look closely to see if the company’s discipline of the harasser fit the misconduct. They really get annoyed if the harasser was let off the hook because of money (a rainmaker, a top salesperson), and the last thing you want is an annoyed juror. They’ll send that money back in the other direction.
Need some parameters? 94% of polled jurors felt that a company should terminate a supervisor who physically touches an employee in a sexual manner. 83% of polled jurors feel that executives don’t get disciplined severely enough.
YOU’RE BEHIND THE 8-BALL
72% of polled jurors believe sexual harassment at work may be less blatant nowadays, but it still happens.
75% of jurors, both male and female, believe a woman who says she’s been sexually harassed at work.
Only 22% think it’s suspicious when a woman waits several months to report sexual harassment.
Johnston recommends employers “broaden their focus from legally defensible policies and procedures to a practical focus on building a respectful work culture, providing multiple channels of reporting, and teaching their managers sound interpersonal skills,” that is to say – emotional intelligence.
Remember these research findings when incidents are reported:
When rating the behavior of a woman, the behaviors female observers rate as “definitely not sexual” are rated by male observers as “neutral”. (Adler, 1993; Gutek, et al, 1982).
Men are more likely than women to believe that harassing behavior should be handled by the targets on their own, not by organizational agents. In other words, men expect the victim to take more initiative before involving others.
Men tend to believe the amount of sexual harassment reported in the workplace is exaggerated (Gutek, 1985; Weiner, et al 1995; Weiner, et al 1997).
Women tend to perceive a wider range of sexual/sexist jokes as constituting harassment (Kagehiro, et al 2001).
Women tend to perceive behaviors initiated by higher-status individuals toward lower-status ones as inappropriate regardless of the target’s gender, while men think it’s motivated to close the psychological distance (i.e., boss’ attempt to be friendly (Blumenthal, 1998; Gutek, et al, 1982; Weiner, et al, 1995, 1997).
Women are more likely than men to believe that a harassed woman who complained was more at risk of retaliation and less likely to be taken seriously (Kagehiro, et al 2001).
NO SURPRISES
People consider the company guilty more often:
When social/sexual behavior is displayed by a higher-status individual towards a lower-status individual, especially when in direct supervisory position.
When the alleged targets are women in nontraditional occupations, especially where they come into work contact with large numbers of men. This alerts jurors to the possibility of the ‘old boy network.’
When there’s perceived lack of formal procedures in place for handling complaints and providing satisfactory feedback to the complainant.
When there’s perceived negligence by direct supervisory personnel about the proper procedures for handling a complaint.
When there’s a perceived laxity on the part of the employer in permitting inappropriate workplace behaviors to escalate into a sexual harassment situation. Source: Kagehiro, Ph.D., et al, 2001
HELP EMPLOYEES MANAGE STRESS
Jurors feel inadequate about making damage judgments. It also comes at a time when they have the least energy. Therefore they often take cues from suggestions by the attorneys without figuring it out themselves.
Levels of emotional arousal also affect size of verdict – whether jurors are calm or angry. “Managers who are overworked or under trained are most likely to make errors in judgment when handling offensive behavior complaints,” says Johnston.
THE UNDERDOG
In psychology, it’s called “self-serving bias.” It means we tend to think of ourselves as above average, and therefore the plaintiff as less competent and skillful than we are. Therefore they need our protection against the corporation. Therefore, the jurors make the defense prove not just that they behaved reasonably, but that they “behaved in a manner sufficient to protect the more ‘simple-minded’ plaintiff.” Again, employees at your office may expect this behavior (paternalistic) from your managers.
AVERSIVE RACISM
Phoebe Ellsworth, Ph.D., et al have found that “When Whites are aware of the racial overtones in a case, they are motivated to appear nonprejudiced.” In a series of experiments comparing Black and White mock jurors’ responses to interracial crimes, they found Whites treat Black and White defendants equally once racial issues are made salient. ” When they are not made salient, however,” says Ellsworth, “Whites see Black defendants as more guilty, aggressive, and violent than White defendants.” Blacks do not, suggesting racial issues are generally salient in their minds.
MEET THEIR EXPECTATIONS
74% of jurors felt employers act more unethically now than 20 years ago. (Dispute Dynamics Survey, 1996)
74% thought that, before terminating an employee, the employer must warn them, make sure they understand the rule or policy they’ve violated, and give them a chance to correct it.
Particularly if employee is long-term
These same demands also cause dissension in the workplace. Jurors are angered by unethical or misbehaving managers, expect due process in resolving performance problems, and don’t like surprises (sudden layoffs).
CONCLUSION
Don’t take a close look at your company’s culture for the first time because you’ve been served, establish an emotional intelligence culture now. An EQ coach can help you.
“Employers who take steps to train their managers in the interpersonal skills needed to be effective managers are likely to have less lawsuits – and to win the ones they do,” says Johnston.
Susan Dunn, MA, Marketing Coach,
http://www.webstrategies.cc. Marketing consultation,
implementation, website review, SEO optimization, article
writing and submission, help with ebooks and other
strategies. Susan is the author or How to Write an eBook
and Market It on the Internet. Mailto:sdunn@susandunn.cc
for information and free ezine. Specify Checklist.
