Does Drama at Work Cost the Average Worker 2.5 Hours Per Day? #workhuman

Capitalist Note:  I'm spending the first couple of days of this week at WorkHuman in Austin.  Put on by Globoforce, WorkHuman is the most progressive HR Conference available, with past shows focused on emerging trends like mindfulness, meditation and more - the leading edge of people practices and how HR can build them.  It's also hard to get a free Diet Coke at WorkHuman, because that stuff is bad for you - but healthy options are available and free.  One of the best shows I attend, highly recommended.

Stop me when you've heard this before.  

You're a manager of people/leader.  You're walking in one day and you get stopped dead in your tracks.  Allison wants to talk with you.  Allison has been known to get wound up and need some vent Tonytime with you on a periodic basis.

You've been trained by the world that you need to be a good listener as a manager.  So you invite Allison into your office and let her unload- you let her vent.

45 minutes later, you don't feel like you've really done anything to help.  You're concerned about a couple of things that Allison has said, but when you try to talk about some actions you can take, Allison says the following:

"I don't want you to do anything with this - I just needed someone to talk to"

F###. You walked in at 8am - it's now 8:50.  Allison feels better - at least for today.  You don't.

Did you do the right thing by allowing Allison to vent?

I had the chance to listen to Cy Wakeman talk Monday afternoon at WorkHuman in Austin.  For those of you that don't know her, here's the 411 on Cy via her own site:

What if you could diffuse workplace drama and be happier at work and in life? The great news is...now, you can!

Cy's research shows that the average worker spends 2.5 hours per day on drama.  Either interacting with others or just being worked up on their own.  She feels activities like the one described by me above with "Allison", while well intentioned by you and me, are actually net negative to the workplace.

Cy believes that rather than engaging in that vent sessions to let someone unload, you need to hold them accountable for what they can control.  One of the ways she recommends you do that to an individual that wants to b*tch is to diffuse the drama and ask “what does great look like” to get the person in front of you back to action.

"What does great look like?"

The concept is that someone wants to complain to you.  Many times they're wanting to complain about things they can't control, or realities they've made up in their own mind.  The question "what does great look like?" is designed to get them back to action.

Thus,"What does great look like?" is followed by "what part of that can you control?", then followed by the guidance "go do some of that.  Now.  You'll feel better"

My description of the technique provided by Cy is from 30,000 feet.  Go to her site at the link above and there's books with much more detail, tools and process to cut through the drama, take on fewer vent sessions and just 180 people back into action.

Cy Wakeman is a smart, smart person. The hard part for HR leaders in eliminating ego and drama in the workplace is transferring her techniques to the average manager of people. Possible? Yes. Hard? Yeah....

Allison: "We Need to talk."  <starts ranting about something your manager of people knows will take 45 minutes to diffuse>

Your Manager of People (MOP): " I know what you're talking about.  What does Great Look Like?"

Allison: <taken aback by the interruption> <Thinking>

Allison: "It would be great if you and the other members of the leadership team would smarten up and fire the two people I'm talking about."

Your MOP: <wishing he had read Cy's book - the one you gave him>

The point?  Cy's got some great thoughts and eliminating drama is a great aspirational goal.  The devil is in the details - to get the best results, you'll need to arm your managers with not only the question to regain control of the conversation, but the techniques to overcome all the sidetracks they'll encounter.

What does great look like?

That depends on who you ask.   

 

 

 


HBR Says Women Experience More Incivility than Men at Work — Especially from Other Women (KD at #workhuman)

Capitalist Note:  I'm spending the first couple of days of this week at WorkHuman in Austin.  Put on by Globoforce, WorkHuman is the most progressive HR Conference available, with past shows focused on emerging trends like mindfulness, meditation and more - the leading edge of people practices and how HR can build them.  It's also hard to get a free Diet Coke at WorkHuman, because that stuff is bad for you - but healthy options are available and free.  One of the best shows I attend, highly recommended.

I've been to WorkHuman one time a couple of years ago, and I'm back this year. It's a great show, but it has a very progressive lean, and you have to be ready for that.  For me, it's a great shock out of the day-to-day way Pradawe normally think as traditional HR practitioners.  Couple of funny memories from the first time I attended the show, both of which occurred during Q&A and tell you more about the average state of HR, not WorkHuman:

1--A HR manager type from Zappos asked a question from the audience - her question was interrupted by applause, because she was from ZAPPOS.  Only in HR, my friends.  Even the classiness and deep thinking of WorkHuman can't stop that reaction.  Everybody drink.

2--Another HR Manager type asked a question about - and I'm not making this up - making her workplace meditation sessions/rooms mandatory for people because participation was low.

Mandatory meditation sessions?  Welcome to the intersection of great thoughts/HR content brought to you by Workhuman (mindfulness and meditation) and average HR attempting to find their way to deliver on some of the ideas shared (make that s*** mandatory). 

But if you listen closely, you'll figure out that WorkHuman is unlike any other HR show within 2 hours into the show.

Every year, WorkHuman evolves. One of the highlights of Workhuman this year is a #metoo panel, described below:

The #MeToo movement brought to light human behaviors that have no place in a human workplace. We are bringing together the leading voices of this movement in a historic panel discussion on sexual harassment, respect, and equality in the workplace. This panel will focus on these critical issues facing HR leaders today and organizations can drive changes and build cultures where everyone feels safe and empowered.

This discussion will be moderated by top-rated Wharton professor and best-selling author Adam Grant, a long-time advocate for workplace equality. Panel participants include actress and humanitarian Ashley Judd, gender equity advocate Tarana Burke, and other soon-to-be-announced guests.

I'm fascinated that Grant and Ronan Farrow (one of the TBD panelists) - two white guys - make up half this panel (Grant's moderating, but I'm counting him).  I'm confident they'll do a great job, but the danger for them is real.  One wrong turn and it's going to be harsh for them, like the time Matt Damon did some #mansplaining of this own on a diversity panel.  Part of me feels like including guys on the panel is a lot like NASCAR (I've been to a race one time), where people just wait for the inevitable crash.  Imagine the focus in the room when these guys speak.  It's a form of inclusion, even if many in the audience will be guarded every time one of the guys speaks:

"What did he just say?"

That's going to be interesting to me.  But I will say this - WorkHuman stretches your boundaries, and that's the whole point. Growth and getting exposed to ideas and perspectives you don't encounter every day is the currency of this show.

Here's another recent item related to some of the conversation that will/should happen at WorkHuman...

A recent study by HBR showed the following - Women Experience More Incivility at Work Especially from Other Women - which is a finding I'm assuming will be addressed indirectly by the #metoo panel.  Here's some snippets from that study that play into the #metoo panel:

Most employees, at one point or another, have been the victim of incivility at work. Ranging from snarky comments or rude interruptions to being disrespected in a brusque email, organizations can be breeding grounds for this type of behavior. Compared to more egregious forms of workplace mistreatment like sexual harassment, incivility — which is classified as low-intensity deviance at work — may seem minor. Yet, the costs of incivility can add up.

One finding that has been frequently documented is that women tend to report experiencing more incivility at work than their male counterparts. However, it has been unclear to as to who is perpetrating the mistreatment towards women at work. Some have theorized that men may be the culprits, as men are the more dominant social class in society and may feel as though they have the power to mistreat women. Perhaps as more overt forms of mistreatment like sexual harassment have become legally prohibited and socially taboo, subtle forms of discrimination in the form of incivility may increasingly occur within the workplace. Others, however, have theorized and suggested that women may be mistreating other women because they are more likely to view each other as competition for advancement opportunities in companies.

Our research examined these two opposing views by conducting three complementary studies. These studies involved rather large samples, surveying between 400 and over 600 U.S. employees per study, across a variety of service operations and time periods. In each study, we consistently found that women reported experiencing more incivility from other women than from their male coworkers. Examples of this incivility included being addressed in unprofessional terms, having derogatory comments directed toward them, being put down in a condescending way, and being ignored or excluded from professional camaraderie.

The question, though, is why? Why would women be more susceptible to this treatment from other women? Our research suggests that when women acted more assertively at work — expressing opinions in meetings, assigning people to tasks, and taking charge — they were even more likely to report receiving uncivil treatment from other women at work. We suspect that it may be that women acting assertively contradicts the norms that women must be warm and nurturing rather than emphatic and dominant. This means that women who take charge at work may suffer backlash in the form of being interpersonally mistreated.

It may also be the case that these assertive behaviors are viewed as ruthless by other women; given that women are more likely to compare themselves against each other, these behaviors may signal competition, eliciting incivility as a response.

HR has been said to be 70%+ female.  I can tell you that I've seen women in HR treat their female departmental peers harshly, and I can also tell you that I never felt like I received that same treatment as a guy - which I now can code as Incivility based on the HBR article.  Thanks, HBR!

The guys in HR get passes a lot of times from women in HR.  Women in HR don't always get the same courtesy from other women in HR.

You can go read the entire article on the study here.  I'm guessing the topic of woman to woman incivility will come up in the panel.  

But if I was one of those guys on the panel, I'd wait for the females bring it up.

More notes to follow from #workhuman in Austin.  Put this one on your list of shows to attend in the future.

 


Miss Robin - A Story on the Value of Employee Retention...

Take a look at this Instagram post below (email subscribers, click through if you can't see it) and I'll tell you more after the jump:

So here's your backstory on this-- I spoke Monday in Atlanta in front of a large group of franchise owners at Primrose Learning Centers.  The Dunn's are former Primrose parents, and
IMG_3669happy ones at that.  So I was excited when Primrose choose my company (Kinetix) to provide Recruiting and HR services for the parent company, which is headquartered in Atlanta.

That would have been enough.  But when pulling together my presentation, I got to tell a great story.  Drew Dunn, my oldest, was a Primrose student for 5+ years before he entered Kindergarten.  He was at Primrose from 2000-2005.  

Flash forward to 2017.  Mrs. Dunn and I are headed somewhere with Drew and he wants to pull into a Taco Bell (that's his hangout, don't judge) to get a drink.  So we pull in there and notice that it's taking a long time for him to get that Mt. Dew.  We look in and see him talking to an adult.  Another couple of minutes pass and he walks out with someone we immediately recognize as a former Primrose teacher - Miss Robin!

Miss Robin (pictured above ) recognized Drew- 13 years after she was his teacher at a Primrose school - and picked him out of a crowd! She’s still at Primrose. How many referrals do you think they will get from us based on the power of that?

Who needs facial recognition from a computer when you have Miss Robin?

That's the most powerful lead I could have for my presentation - The power of committed employees is remarkable, which makes hiring AND retention key.

Looking forward to helping Primrose find better ways to locate talent that makes a difference in our world.  The more people like Miss Robin they can find, the stronger they will be!


T-Mobile: Sometimes People Strategy is Zigging When Everyone Else Is Zagging...

This blog is generally about HR.  One thing about HR though - the best HR leaders generally help their clients (internal leaders of business units and functional areas) think differently about business problems.  Since the solution to most business problems generally involve workforce alignment and OD issues, it stands to reason that HR people could have something valuable to say.

But a lot of us allow the status quo to go on even if we think there's a better way.  We're busy. We've got shit to do.  How they approach business problems is their job - let them do it, right? Tmobile

That's fine until you go back to the central theme in the first paragraph - that the solution to most problems involves people.  And if you don't have opinions and hot takes about that, then you/we deserve the administrative tag that so many put on us.

Let me give you a great business solution that could have been the idea of any above-average HR leader in the field.  T-Mobile is a company that is shaking up all kinds of shit in the wireless industry.  They recently made Fortune's 100 Best Places to Work list, but the focus of their profile was as much about business solutions as it was about perks and ping-pong.  Which is another way to say that how you approach business can drive your culture as much as anything.

More from Fortune on one such strategy at T-Mobile:

T-Mobile is doubling down on “do what they tell you” under an effort called “Team of Experts,” which has given call-center employees unprecedented authority. Under the plan, which launched last year, T-Mobile divided its customers into blocks of about 120,000, who are each assigned to a specific group of a few dozen employees at a specific call center. When customers call for support, they are routed to their assigned team, instead of being assigned to a random rep at the least busy center in the country, as is typical in the industry. There’s no transferring of calls elsewhere in a frustrating ducking of accountability. Reps are held responsible for the outcomes of their customer group, measured by metrics such as how frequently customers defect to another carrier or how often they call support, and reps and their managers are empowered to hand out service credits or alter bills.

“People in the industry told us we were crazy to do non-randomized routing,” says Callie Field, T-Mobile’s executive vice president in charge of customer care. But T-Mobile’s cost to serve customers has dropped by 9% overall since it was implemented, while customer satisfaction scores increased by 20 percentage points, Field says. Legere says that the customer-care team’s new responsibilities give them even more data they can use to assess how promotions are going or whether customers understand new plans. “These people talk to 20 customers a day; that’s your gold mine.”

How many HR leaders have looked at the dehumanized, cattle call, big box call centers and thought "there has to be a better way"?  Not only for your people, but for the business?

I think a lot of us could have come up with that solution.  Putting people in the right type of role to do their best work leads to great business results, and culturally, it's more sustainable than almost anything else we can do to build great company culture.

Few of us would naturally go against the grain against something like big box, next globally available rep call centers.  But it's where the biggest impact for HR is.

What is your company doing that's incredibly stupid in your business when it comes to people? If you want a big win in 2018, be a proponent of a business change involving people that gets business results.

Do that, and you'll get your culture thing.


LEADERSHIP: How The 1998 Chicago Bulls Eliminated Dissension and Reached Their Goal....

I'm not a big gimmick/team-building exercise guy.  I find most team-building stuff to be a little forced, although I will say that I always dread it and emerge from it with some type of positive.  The positive I get is usually empathy towards a team member that I didn't necessarily like or feel close to.

I ran across a team building/unity exercise yesterday and wanted to share.  It's from the the 1998 Chicago Bulls, who had won 5 titles and where getting ready to start the playoffs for what everyone was sure would be their final run. Jackson

Their season was full of distraction, arguments and distrust.  Here what Phil Jackson, the legendary coach, did to quiet the noise and circle the wagons one last time.   More from Bill Simmons at The Ringer:

Jackson gathered players, coaches and trainers for a special meeting before the 1998 playoffs, asking everyone to write a message about what that final season meant to them. A poem, a sentence, a song, whatever. It had to be 50 words or fewer. Everyone obliged. They went around the room reading their messages, even Jordan, and when they finished, Jackson burned them in a coffee can. All the chaos and dissension burned away with it. They banded together for eight weeks and prevailed again, for a lot of reasons, but mainly because they employed the greatest player ever.

Before you kill me - I get it - this exercise doesn't work for most of the team building needs you have.

But I like this one a lot for teams who are getting ready to have to come together for a big challenge, teams that maybe could be fired if the next month or two doesn't go well, and especially if those teams are generally bitchy towards each other.

50 words or less.  Maybe you frame it as what your job means to you.  Who knows what comes out of these people's heads, right?  Could be stupid stuff, or it could be fascinating.

One thing's for sure - no one is going to try and look stupid if they have the floor and they've had some time to think about it.

What I love about this exercise is that it gets you into the head of your teammate.  Maybe it's someone you don't like very much.  What happens when they try and have a serious moment is what I mentioned before - empathy from others.

Ahhhh.  That's who you are.  Got it.  With empathy and understanding comes a couple of other things.  Patience.  A little bit of trust.

Can you use this exercise today?  Probably not. Should you be looking for ways to make your team more empathetic to each other?  Absolutely.

The Bulls won their 6th title in 1998, primary because they had Michael Jordan.

But a little bit of that title belongs to Jackson, who kept the lid on long enough to make the last title run with Jordan.

Don't forgot to burn the paper your people bring in.


The Bain "Expert Generalist" Model and the Increasing Value of a Liberal Arts Degree...

With all the talk of automation and AI changing the nature of jobs in the future, one question we should all be asking (especially those of us with kids) is "what degrees, education and skills are going to have the most impact in the future?"

Mark Cuban has an opinion - he thinks some of the degrees we're most focused on now are going to fade in importance and liberal arts - yes, liberal arts - is going to make a comeback.  Here's an excerpt of what he said in a Liberal artsrecent interview via Business Insider:

I personally think there's going to be a greater demand in 10 years for liberal arts majors than there were for programming majors and maybe even engineering, because when the data is all being spit out for you, options are being spit out for you, you need a different perspective in order to have a different view of the data. And so having someone who is more of a freer thinker.

Cuban's forecast of the skills needed to succeed in the future echoes that of computer science and higher education experts who believe people with "soft skills," like adaptability and communication, will have the advantage in an automated workforce.

Cuban highlighted English, philosophy, and foreign language majors as just some of the majors that will do well in the future job market.

"The nature of jobs is changing," Cuban said.

If you've followed the breaking news out of Cuban's Dallas Mavericks organization, you can insert witty joke on the most important training for future professional workers <here>.  Regardless of Cuban's recent troubles, his thoughts on the future of the workplace is interesting.

Cuban's thoughts made me think more about the Bain "Expert Generalist" model.  Here's a taste of that model:

Orit Gadiesh, the Bain & Co. chairman who coined the term, describes expert-generalism as “the ability and curiosity to master and collect expertise in many different disciplines.”

Research shows EG’s have:

Hmm, sounds like the world could use a few more EG’s.

More from LongNow.org:

From his perspective as a psychology researcher, Philip Tetlock watched political advisors on the left and the right make bizarre rationalizations about their wrong predictions at the time of the rise of Gorbachev in the 1980s and the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union. (Liberals were sure that Reagan was a dangerous idiot; conservatives were sure that the USSR was permanent.) The whole exercise struck Tetlock as what used to be called an “outcome-irrelevant learning structure.” No feedback, no correction.

Tetlock’s summary: “Partisans across the opinion spectrum are vulnerable to occasional bouts of ideologically induced insanity.” He determined to figure out a way to keep score on expert political forecasts, even though it is a notoriously subjective domain (compared to, say, medical advice), and “there are no control groups in history.”

So Tetlock took advantage of getting tenure to start a long-term research project now 18 years old to examine in detail the outcomes of expert political forecasts about international affairs. He studied the aggregate accuracy of 284 experts making 28,000 forecasts, looking for pattern in their comparative success rates. Most of the findings were negative— conservatives did no better or worse than liberals; optimists did no better or worse than pessimists. Only one pattern emerged consistently.

“How you think matters more than what you think.”

It’s a matter of judgement style, first expressed by the ancient Greek warrior poet Archilochus: “The fox knows many things; the hedgehog one great thing.” The idea was later expanded by essayist Isaiah Berlin. In Tetlock’s interpretation, Hedgehogs have one grand theory (Marxist, Libertarian, whatever) which they are happy to extend into many domains, relishing its parsimony, and expressing their views with great confidence. Foxes, on the other hand are skeptical about grand theories, diffident in their forecasts, and ready to adjust their ideas based on actual events.

I've always been a fan of the HR Generalist - the HR professional (manager, director and VP level) that is responsible for all of the areas of HR.  A lot of the research today is telling us that the need for deep specialization is going to fade in a world of automation and that the generalist - regardless of profession - is going to be on the rise.

The real question is - are you willing to bet your kid's future and have him/her get a liberal arts degree?

Wow.  I don't know about that.  I just don't know.


HR CAPITALIST DEFINITIONS: "Edge City" (with notes on Amazon Moving to ATL)...

With all the competition for Amazon's second headquarters (dubbed HQ2) and with Atlanta (home of Kinetix, the company I own part of) being in the mix, I thought I'd share one of my favorite books of all time and give you a Capitalist definition while we are at it.

Edge City is the term.  I picked up the book by the same name over 20 years ago at a bookstore when heading to the beach for a vacation.  The book became one of my all time ATLfavorites, and the definition changed how I viewed the business world forever.  Here's a description of the term, as well as details about the concept.  Take a look and we'll talk about Atlanta/Amazon after the jump.

"Edge city" is an American term for a concentration of business, shopping, and entertainment outside a traditional downtown (or central business district) in what had previously been a residential or rural area. The term was popularized by the 1991 book Edge City: Life on the New Frontier by Joel Garreau, who established its current meaning while working as a reporter for the Washington Post. Garreau argues that the edge city has become the standard form of urban growth worldwide, representing a 20th-century urban form unlike that of the 19th-century central downtown. Other terms for these areas include suburban activity centers, megacenters, and suburban business districts.

In 1991, Garreau established five rules for a place to be considered an edge city:

  • Has five million or more square feet (465,000 m²) of leasable office space.
  • Has 600,000 square feet (56,000 m²) or more of leasable retail space.
  • Has more jobs than bedrooms.
  • Is perceived by the population as one place.
  • Was nothing like a "city" as recently as 30 years ago. Then it was just bedrooms, if not cow pastures."

Most edge cities develop at or near existing or planned freeway intersections, and are especially likely to develop near major airports. They rarely include heavy industry. They often are not separate legal entities but are governed as part of surrounding counties (this is more often the case in the East than in the Midwest, South, or West). They are numerous—almost 200 in the United States, compared to 45 downtowns of comparable size—and are large geographically because they are built at automobile scale.

The book is organized by chapters that dig into various Edge Cities in America, including Tyson's Corner, Houston's Galleria area and more.  Because the book came out in 1991 - you can preview the whole book on Amazon (irony) without buying.

What's the big deal about Edge Cities for HR?  The biggest impact they have is what I call "recruiting center of gravity" - my term, not in the book.

Commute preferences change in metro areas as Edge Cities come online and continue to grow.  In Atlanta - home of Kinetix - Edge Cities like Buckhead, Perimeter and Galleria have pushed the employment center of gravity north, to the point where a study I did in 2009 showed that the location preferred by the greatest number of candidates across Atlanta was the Perimeter, located at 12 o'clock on I-285, the perimeter loop that surrounds downtown Atlanta.

But back to Amazon.  You might expect that given the northbound trend of Edge Cities in Atlanta, Amazon would be looking for a location in the north suburbs.  You'd be wrong, primarily because the airport is south of downtown.  As a result, the patch of land proposed for Amazon is connected to downtown near the old Georgia Dome location in an area called The Gulch.

Edge Cities apply to everyone but Amazon - because 50,000 jobs has its own gravity that transcends the Edge City formula.

Quick math - if the average office space formula calls for 170 feet of office space per employee/worker, the HQ2 project would stand at 8.5 million feet of leasable/owned real estate to support 50,000 employees.

You know - the equivalent of 14 Edge Cities described by Garreau.

As they said in Jaws - we're going to need a bigger boat.


You People Who Get Groggy In Meetings Amaze Me...

If you're like me, when you see a person in a meeting start to redline out into something resembling sleep, you're amazed.

I know, I know.  There are sleep disorders that cause people to be unable to stay awake in a meeting or any another work situation that involves someone talking for intermediate to long periods of time.

But my fascination remains.  How do people go to sleep in meetings when their boss is talking - or their boss's boss is talking?

In today's world, we point to sleeping disorders as the reason.  We used to call it natural selection, and the level to which someone was penalized for falling asleep in a work situation was directly and positively correlated with how much they contributed to the business:

Strong contributor nodding off in meeting:  We just make fun of them behind their back.

Weak contributor nodding off in meeting: "Did you see your boy Jim in the REM stage? I'm going to let you take care of that."

Translation: If Jim can't get his s**t together, I don't want to see him in meetings, which means he might not be in the company.

I've been given a natural gift.  I don't look groggy in work meetings, even when I haven't slept in 24 hours and I'm in a brain funk that rivals the deep fog of the SF bay area.  Of course, that doesn't mean I've heard a damn thing you've said in that meeting, only that I have the ability to not offend those in charge/presenting.  I also can't fall asleep on airplanes.  Another minus side related to sleep and me - I've got an internal clock that wakes me up at the time I've thought about getting up - even if I don't have to on a weekend, etc.

These thoughts about work sleep brought to you courtesy of the Twitter moment below, which wonders aloud how people in movies fall asleep automatically, which is followed by people talking about sleep patterns on nights before they have to go the airport, etc.  Funny stuff, worth 3 minutes to flip through the whole thing.

Work and sleep are a weird combination.  Email subscribers click through if you don't see the Twitter moment below.


What Part of the Normal American Workplace Will Be Most Impacted by #metoo?

There's a ton of good that's come from the daily breaking news associated with the #metoo movement.  Creeps everywhere are being held responsible for their behavior, and society in general seems to have a higher awareness for what's appropriate and what's not.  There's a lot of details in between, but the one I spend the most time thinking about is the following:

When does the #metoo movement hold common day, ordinary creeps accountable Work deep into the American workplace, where there's no media coverage of the proceedings?

I'm not sure I know the answer. For all of the good that's come out of the #metoo proceedings, it's still murky how the ordinary American workplace will be impacted.  Awareness is great, but the true creeps can keep on giving the creepers to all around them at the soft drink distributor in Peoria, IL.  There's no media to report on those stories, and without the positive impact/protection of coverage, many impacted by harassment are less likely to report.

The industry that might have the most potential for a #metoo movement aware from media coverage?  It might be your local restaurant.  Here's more from the New York Times:

"Restaurants are like pirate ships. Each has its own code, with distinct values and rules. Some crews are kind, supportive and disciplined, relatively speaking. Others are angry, surly, misogynistic and drunk. New crew members quickly fit in, or jump ship. Like pirate crews, restaurant staffs are cohesive societies, but they aren’t big on transparency, and it’s hard for outsiders to know what’s happening.

Fifty years ago, when nobody cared what went on in restaurant kitchens except health inspectors and tax collectors, acting like pirates was probably a useful skill. Today, though, it is outmoded.

Customers may enjoy the occasional sample of salty pirate speech, but they also care about the inner workings of kitchens. They know the names of the chef, the sous-chef, the pastry chef, the head bartender. They’ve watched TV documentaries about the creative process behind trout roe in little cups made of pig’s blood. They’ve heard many chefs talk on many occasions about certain kinds of ethical behavior, having mostly to do with livestock.

Something has gone grotesquely wrong when chefs brag that the chickens they buy lived happy, stress-free lives, but can’t promise us that the women they employ aren’t being assaulted in the storage room."

I'd encourage all to go read the NYT piece.  There have been celebrity chefs who have been taken down my #metoo, but the vast majority of the industry isn't driven by celebrity chefs.  

But, the familiarity of customers with the chefs and staff at private restaurants across America presents an interesting opportunity.  If you care about where the chickens come from as a patron, do you care about the treatment of the women staff at La Paz?

Not many customers are sensitive to how anyone is treated at the cable company.  They already hate the cable company, so it stands to reason that the cable company treats their people like garbage (no matter how wrong the treatment is).  No one would be surprised by that.

But your local white cloth restaurant?  What would you say if you new the owner was asking female servers to come pick up the cash bag at his place and opening the door in a robe?

Yeah, you'd probably get the creepers and not go back.

With tools like Yelp out there, were only a new feature away from the review economy telling you how female friendly that privately-owned restaurant is.

For that reason, the restaurant industry is ripe for accountability related to the #metoo movement.

Interesting times.


NBC's New Rules on Workplace Hugging Means NO HUGGING....

If you thought you were going to just keep doing what you are doing related to PDA (public displays of affection) in the #metoo era, you're not only naive, you must be saved from yourself.  All your hugging, your slight touches to the shoulder, the full mouth kissing (OK, hopefully you weren't doing that) is persona non grata, or at least it should be.  That's why NBC, after s#x machine Matt Lauer got outed, is creating specific rules about what's acceptable and what's not.

More from Page 6:

"NBC has issued strict new anti-sexual harassment rules to employees — including that staffers must snitch on any misbehaving colleagues — in the wake of the firing of disgraced “Today” show host Matt Lauer.

A source tells Page Six that NBC employees have been ordered to report any inappropriate relationships in the workplace — and if they fail to do so, they could be fired for covering up for colleagues. Side hug

Detailed rules also have been issued about conduct in the office, including how to socialize and even how to hug colleagues.

One rule relates to hugging. If you wish to hug a colleague, you have to do a quick hug, then an immediate release, and step away to avoid body contact."

The NBC rules on hugging show just how far we still have to go when it comes to legislating hugs in the workplace.  My friend, Tim Sackett, is the world's leading expert on workplace hugging.  Lucky for you I'm here to give you the new rules for hugging in the workplace.  Let's use the framework for what's been reported related to the hugging rules at NBC.  Here's the new NBC guidance on hugging:

"If you wish to hug a colleague, you have to do a quick hug, then an immediate release, and step away to avoid body contact."

Here's the new HR Capitalist Rules on Hugging:

1.  Are you a guy?  And, correct me if I'm wrong, you still want to hug someone?  You may have a high IQ, but street smarts aren't your thing.  Why are we talking about hugging?  Oh, I see, you're different, no one will get the creeps from your hugs.  Riiiiight.

2.  You still want to hug?  OK, the NBC rules don't go far enough.  If you must, go in side to side for a "side-hug", with outside of shoulders touching.  For best results, lean in for the side hug at least a foot, leaving all other parts of your body far from the subject of your hug.

3. Your hand should be top of the shoulder - nowhere else. Release in under 1 second.

4.  This just in, if you wait to think about avoiding body contact until you release the hug (like the NBC rules remind you), you've already lost in the new world.  

The final rule of hugging in today's workplace is that it's Darwinian in nature.  It's like natural selection in some ways.  Those that think hugging is still cool and they'll never be misinterpreted are missing the adaptation that others will automatically get. 

I get that most of you aren't perves.  But when NBC is issuing rules on hugging, the clear message is that you shouldn't hug.  

I know, you had so much to give to build a more compassionate workplace with your hugging.  Sucks to be you.  Maybe a hardy handshake is your best bet.