Repealing of DADT can pave the way for equality

Over 13,500 men and women were dishonorably discharged from the US Military  as a result of President Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) legislation. What originally was intended to protect members of the GLBT community, ended up hurting them.  That all came to a change in the December of 2010. Members of the GLBT community were starting to lose hope in President Obama in fear that he will never fight for equality. He proved them all wrong on December 22nd, when the legislation of DADT was finally repealed.

With DADT no longer in effect, the country is moving one step closer to equality regardless of sexual orientation. Currently, there is no Federal law preventing employers from terminating employees due to their sexual orientation. Some states offer protection but it is not universal across the US. One hopes that DADT will pave the way for the inclusion of sexual orientation in EEOC as a protected class. DADT was a large obstacle to overcome but now comes the time to protect every U.S. citizen regardless of his/her sexual orientation.

Comparing Victim Attributes and Outcomes for Workplace Aggression and Sexual Harassment (Part 2)

Summary by: Ian B. Mondrow, M.A.

Following their previous research, Hershcovis and Barling (2010) decide to conduct a meta-analysis using 112 studies and 134 independent samples. The authors of previous studies that used the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ) were contacted to reanalyze the data with merely a subcomponent of the SEQ. 82% of the samples were returned. Data was analyzed using Hunter Schmidt’s (1990 as cited by Hershcovis & Barling, 2010) for calculating weighted average reliabilities, adjusting for sample error, and measuring confidence intervals. Z tests were used to analyze independent correlations.

Results revealed that sexual harassment had a negative relationship with job satisfaction (r_c = -.29), coworker satisfaction (r_c = -.35), supervisor satisfaction (r_c = -.34), affective commitment (r_c = - .29), and psychological wellbeing (r_c = -.28). Studies continued to show that sexual harassment had positive relationships with turnover (r_c =.21), job stress (r_c =.21) and work withdrawal (r_c =.29). All of the correlations mentioned above were statistically significant with a probability less than .01. The author fails to mention that while the correlations are significant, they are low correlations and thus may have weak effects.

Workplace aggression was found to have stronger relationships than sexual harassment. It was found to have negative correlations with job satisfaction (r_c = -.46), coworker satisfaction (r_c = -.37), supervisor satisfaction (r_c = -.49), affective commitment (r_c = -.40) and psychological wellbeing (r_c = -.40). Positive correlations for workplace aggression were present for turnover (r_c =.39), job stress (r_c =.32) and work withdrawal (r_c =.19). All correlations had a probability less than .05.

As already demonstrated with the correlations, Z-tests comparisons revealed that workplace aggression had stronger negative outcomes than sexual harassment in job satisfaction, supervisor satisfaction, affective commitment, psychological wellbeing, and turnover and job stress. No significant difference was present for coworker satisfaction. Work withdrawal had a stronger effect with sexual harassment than workplace aggression.

 IMPLICATIONS FOR HR PROFESSIONALS

As previously mentioned in Part 1 of this summary, this research shows that workplace aggressive has effects that are far more influential than sexual harassment. This may be a result of the lack of action that is taken to address this issue. Sexual harassment is a sensitive topic and organizations attempt to correct the harassment quickly to avoid lawsuits. Workplace aggression,however, can not be easily proven and there is no legal implications of an employee that is rude or excludes other individuals. 

Organizations can prevent these negative affects of by implementing a policy stating no tolerance towards workplace aggression or sexual harassment. For this policy to be effective, the organization must investigate all claims of workplace aggression and avoid discrediting any accusations without proof. 

Regardless, sexual harassment and workplace aggression will continue to be part of our society. We do not live in an ideal world and some people have no guilt for their actions. As HR practioners, we should communicate disapproval of any of these actions and the consequences associated with these actions. We should also take immediate action once any complaint is received. These issues should not go unaddressed or else it could have negative effects on company culture and personnel.

Source: Herschcovis, M.S., Barling, J. (2010). Comparing victim attributions and outcomes for workplace aggression and sexual harassment. American Psychological Association, 95 (5), 874-888.

Comparing Victim Attributions and Outcomes for Workplace Aggression & Sexual Harassment (Part 1)

Summary by: Ian B. Mondrow, M.A.

Sexual harassment has had a large presence in male-dominated organizations. It is believed that it occurs in these organizations because women are holding positions that were traditionally filled by men. Surprisingly, if a woman had masculine traits, then she is more susceptible to sexual harassment. Hershcovis and Barling (2010) suggest that sexual harassment degrades an individuals gender and thus lowers his/her status/credibility. When this occurs, female victims view the incident as an attack on their gender instead of on themselves. Sexual harassment on men is far less threatening and may even reinforce their male gender role.

Unlike sexual harassment, workplace aggression does not focus on one's gender or classification. It is equally threatening to both men and women as it crushes one's status or need to feel a part of a group. Examples of workplace aggression include social exclusion, gossiping, yelling, and rude behaviors, which all suggest that the individual is of lower status. These behaviors often focus on individual characteristics instead of one's member to a social group (i.e. gender).

Hershcovis and Barling (2010) set out to research the attributable differences between sexual harassment and workplace aggression. An online survey was administered to 117 participants. Participants were provided a story that differed based on the following dimensions: gender dominant workplace vs. gender neutral workplace (equal distribution among men & women) and workplace aggression vs. sexual harassment.  Participants were asked to rate the scenario on how descriptive it was of sexual harassment and workplace aggression on a 1-5 scale. They were also asked to allocate the blame based on a hundred points between themselves and the perpetrator. In addition, survey respondents answered questions evaluating internal attribution, personal attribution, gender attribution, external attribution, aggression ambiguity, and severity. Gender was also collected as a controlled variable.

A multivariate analysis revealed a significance between workplace aggression and sexual harassment, F(6,98) = 14.80, p<.001. It was also found that participants in the gender-dominant scenario were more likely to make an internal attribution in the workplace aggression scenario (M = 2.72) than the sexual harassment scenario ( M = 1.67). Participants that were part of the workplace aggression scenario were more likely to take the encounter personally than those in the sexual harassment scenario. Those that partook in the sexual harassment scenario were more likely to blame their bully's attitudes, F (1,108) = 19.01, p < .01, on their gender and account them for the blame, F (1,108) = 8.92, p < .01.  Participants that were in the workplace aggression scenario were more likely to blame themselves instead of the bully than those in the sexual harassment scenario. Gender distribution within the organization had no effect on sexual harassment but participants in the workplace aggression sample were more likely to make a gender attribution than in the gender-neutral environment.

IMPLICATIONS FOR HR PROFESSIONALS

Based on the findings in this study, HR practitioners need to be conscious of the fact that victims of workplace aggression are likely to place the blame on themselves. Therefore, when counseling an individual, it is important to emphasize that it is not their fault and that bullying does exist in the organization. In addition, the findings show that bullying can be equally offensive as sexual harassment and should not be taken lightly. HR professionals should examine complaints thoroughly to ensure that bullying does not escalate. 

In regards to sexual harassment, victims are likely to blame the harasser. Which they should! It is vital to understand that no employee is responsible for being a victim of sexual harassment. Regardless of one's clothing, gender, or comments, sexual advances are not acceptable in the workplace and every complaint should be investigated immediately. 

Source: Herschcovis, M.S., Barling, J. (2010). Comparing victim attributions and outcomes for workplace aggression and sexual harassment. American Psychological Association, 95 (5), 874-888.

Why are women paid less than men, but given higher raises?

Summary by: Ian B. Mondrow, M.A. 

Gender differences in pay has been an ongoing issue for decades. Its saddening to think that these differences still exists but an abundance of previous research supports the notion. Regardless of industry, occupation or other variables, women only receive a wage 88% that of men (Blau et al., 1998).  Previous research offers a variety of reasons for this and they include: part-time vs. full-time, employment sector, industry and more. There are also arguments that woman receive reduced starting wage. Some researchers believe that women are less aggressive when it comes to negotiating salary but this is a controversial topic in itself.

Although it does not compensate for a slashed wages, past studies have found that women receive higher pay increases. Redyced stereotyping may be the result of these increases. Reduced stereotyping occurs when a manager does not have a sufficient amount of information to evaluate the individual and therefore base his/her decisions on stereotypes. When enough information is present, reduced stereotype is less likely to occur. Structural features may also be a factor in this gender difference. Many organization base pay increases on a performance rating and their level in their job grade. In this structure, employees that are paid less are eligible for higher pay increases than employees with higher salaries. Therefore, if women start off with lower salaries, they will be more likely to have higher pay increases.

Harris, Gilbreath and Sunday (2002) decided to put these theories to test. Using previous data from a government-owned, contractor-operated nuclear waste facility in the united states. 218 participants were randomly selected to participate; 174 were men and 44 were women.

In their analysis, it was found that seniority, education and performance ratings did not differ between men & women. However, compared to men, women had significantly lower salaries (on average about $1000 less per month) and were in lower grades. When including job grade, education level and seniority as variables in their analysis, it was found that salary differences decreased but did not put an end to the salary differences between genders. On an annual basis, women earned a range of between $1080 (in 1991) and $2004 (in 1993) less than men.

It was found that women received pay increases that were, on average, 5% greater than men. These differences diminished once job grade and base pay were added as variables. Furthermore, performance ratings did not impact the differences between gender.

There are several limitations that must be considered in this study:

• First and foremost, this study is about 8 years old. 
• The organization was new and employed individuals for only 4 years. 
• The organization work with government contracts and therefore may have strict anti-discrimination laws to abide by. 
• The time frame that was examined was only two years.

IMPLICATIONS FOR HR PROFESSIONALS

This picture does not reflect my personal opinion.
It is clearly a controversial image, but I like the
message at the bottom.

How can HR professionals avoid pay differences as a result of gender? This is a tough question and an issue that thousands have been fighting against for decades. First and foremost, ensure that both men and women are offered the initial starting wage. At that point, it is their responsibility to negotiate salary within the range. 

To avoid gender differences in pay increases, pay increases should be based on tenure or performance reviews. Having a structured pay increase guide that correlates with performance appraisal goals can assist in dismantling this difference. In addition, ensuring that managers are provided with sufficient information on their employees will ensure that they do not experience reduced discrimination. Most importantly, always base performance appraisals on a job analysis. For a performance appraisal to be effective, it must be based on the criteria that one needs to be successful in this job.

I am hoping that these pay increases and base salary differences diminish in time.

Source: Harris, M.M., Gilbreath, B., Sunday, J.A. (2002). Why are women paid less than men, but given higher raises. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(4), 499-514.

Credit Checks in Employee Selection (Part 1 of 2)

Summary By: Ian B. Mondrow, M.A.

A selection test is a process that employers implement to hire job candidates or make promotion decisions. In national survey of retail employer, it was found that 48% of the participants utilized credit checks as a selection tool in 2005 (Hollinger & Langton, 2006 as cited in Nielsen & Kuhn, 2009). This number has likely increased since then. Unlike most selection test, a credit check does not ask candidates any questions and does not allow for any answers. Credit checks provide information on an individuals financials including credit cards, mortgage debt, payment history, previous addresses and previous employers. Unlike traditional credit checks, an employer will not receive any calcuated credit scores. The date of birth is also not included. Some employers use credit reports to merely verify employment history and previous addresses, while others use them as a formal selection tool.

Credit checks have become a standard process in hiring for many organization and therefore it is vital for every individual to know the legal implications behind this process. According to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), an employer cannot check one's credit score without obtaining signed permission from the candidate, offering the candidate a copy of the report and inform individuals if the report had any basis for not hiring/promoting them. In addition, federal law prohibits employers from discriminating against an individual has filed for bankruptcy.  Since a credit report is not a series of questions, it is not possible to establish criterion validity and therefore it can be difficult to prove that the report is related to a job. As a result, some states have laws stating that credit reports can not be obtained unless "substantially job-related" to the position. In 2007, this law was passed in the State of Washington as Senate Bill 5827.

There are several perspectives as to why credit checks are used in the selection process: (1) employees  facing financial issues will be more likely to steal and (2) the credit check can be representative of one's consciousness and responsibility. Currently, there are no studies validating that credit checks are related to any personality traits but previous studies have found that credit scores have a positive correlation with counterproductive employee behavior and absenteeism.

To make matters more complicated, credit checks may increase an employers probability of adverse impact as some minorities are more likely to have poor credit histories (Gallagher, 2006 as cited in Nielsen & Kuhn, 2009). If adverse impact is present, employers must prove that a credit check predicts successful job performance. Furthermore, majority of credit reports contain one or more mistakes with one out of four containing a serious error. Therefore, the information may not even be correct!


CLICK Here for Part 2.... 


Source: Nielsen, M.L., and Kuhn, K.M. (2009). Late payments and leery applicants: credit checks as a selection test.  Employ Respons Rights J, 21, 115-130.

There's a Policy for That: Sexual Harassment

Source: Hertzog, J.L., Wright, D., & Beat, D. (2008). There's a policy for that: a comparison of the organizational culture of workplaces reporting incidents of sexual harassment. Behavir and Social Issues, 17, 169-181.

Summary and Commentary by: Ian B. Mondrow, M.A.

Unfortunately, recent research by Hertzog, Write and Beat (2008) reveals that policy alone is not enough to  remove sexual harassment from the workplace. Their study utilized data from 303 companies included in the 2002 National Organizational Survey. All of these companies had policies related to sexual harassment. Out of this sample, 29% of the companies have had a formal complaint filed against them for sexual harassment. These companies were found to experience patterns of negative workplace behavior compared to organizations that did not have a formal complaint. They were also more likely to have occurrences of sexual harassment.

Most the organizations in the study were found to offer training to managers and employees. However, organizations that had claims against them were more likely to offer classes on sexual harassment, workplace violence, conflict resolution, and overcoming negative behaviors.

Since policies alone are not enough to prevent sexual harassment, the researchers suggest implementing behavioral interventions that aim to increase reporting behaviors and reduce sexual harassment behaviors. Merely implementing a policy does not change the organizational behavior, it only protects the company from liability.

IMPLICATIONS FOR HR PROFESSIONALS

A policy alone is not sufficient in preventing sexual harassment from occurring in the workplace. The policy sets the foundation and then it is up to managers to communicate and support its initiative. To create a culture that reduces the chance of sexual harassment behaviors, the organization should continually offer training on the topic as well as communicate [on a regular basis] that any type of negative workplace behavior is not accepted in the company. 

As HR professionals, we should ensure that the message of the policy is clear and that all accusations of sexual harassment should be investigated. Ignoring any accusations put the organization at risk for a legal complaint. Sexual harassment should not be ignored by any individual and all complaints or concerns should be taken seriously, regardless of the source. 

Know your assessment tool

Every industrial psychologist sighs when they hear about an employer using Myers Briggs as selection tools. I once got into a huge debate with a stranger over LinkedIn regarding it. The truth is that Myers Briggs has been proven to have little reliability and thus little validity as well. An assessment can be a powerful tool in selection, but the tool itself must be valid and reliable. In addition to the standard validity, the assessment tool should be able to predict success in a position (criterion validity). An assessment that has not proved criterion validity is at risk for adverse impact. If adverse impact occurs, the hiring organization can face legal consequences since validity was not established.

Content validity can also be used to protect an organization. Content validity means that the organization utilized the results of a job analysis to develop the tool. However, content validity alone does not conclude that the assessment is picking a candidate that is most likely to be successful in the position. It merely infers that the assessment is based on the requirements of the job. Therefore, individuals that pass an assessment with that has only shown content validity may only meet the minimum qualifications.

I stand by the belief of criterion validity! An assessment that has proof to have criterion validity can help an organization identify the high performers in a candidate pool. Criterion validity can be identified using one of two methods:

1. Current employees can take the assessment and then their scores can be correllated to their performance appraisals.
2. Candidates can be hired based on their assessment scores. After a performance appraisal, their performance scores are correlated with their assessment scores.

I strongly suggest utilizing an individual with a strong psychometric background to conduct these studies.

Diversity Training and the Design

Diversity training has been a controversial topic in the training industries. It is obvious that as trainers, it is not beneficial to try and change an individual’s beliefs. Instead, we focus on training behavior. For instance, we teach employees that any behavior related to discrimination can be reprehended. However, can the designer or facilitator influence diversity training? In my personal opinion, yes, it can.

If an organization has diversity training, I have often found that the training mainly focuses on protected class that the trainer most identified with. For instance, if an African American is facilitating the course, he/she may present racial discrimination as the main topic. I have seen my preferences in diversity as well. Why does this occur? It is primarily a result of our passion or past experiences. It is not bad to focus on one aspect but a trainer must question if the training provides sufficient information on other protected classes.

There a variety of solutions to assist trainers in overcoming their personal biases. For instance, piloting a training session with your peers can provide significant feedback. The trainer should ask their peers to rate them on how he/she trained on each protected group. Another suggestion is to create a training program in a team setting. It would even more successful includes individuals from diverse backgrounds. Finally, trainers should always ask participants to evaluate the training. There is no need to ask participants about each protected group. Most likely, they will speak up if they felt a certain group did not receive enough attention.

Diversity is always a crucial topic to train on but facilitators encounter problems when they view diversity with specific groups. Diversity is about embracing individual differences. It is not just race and sex but it is also hair color, intelligence, social class, and gender.