July/August 2004 Issue Number 61

Is a monthly electronic newsletter which links current events and issues to the daily challenges faced by fire and emergency services managers. Current topics in the areas of leadership development, workplace diversity, change management, and conflict resolution will be discussed.

We hope that you find the information here useful and provocative.
Let us know what you think! If you'd like to subscribe to the newsletter, please enter your email address in the box below.

Sign up for our free newsletter,
Consider This...

Women Chief Officers Conference November 11-14, 2004, Wyndham Hotel, San Diego. For more information, go to www.womenfireofficers.org

The Leader in the Mirror

If the leadership of your organization does not seem to reflect the diversity of your community, you are not alone. A recent book by a Harvard Business School professor describes how leadership in the corporate world isn't significantly more diverse than it was even a hundred years ago.

In 1900, CEO's of the largest corporations in America included no women, no African-Americans, no Asians, 10% immigrants, 7% Roman Catholics, and 3% Jews. In the 1990's, one or two women had emerged as CEO's, along with a few African-Americans and Asians; no more than single digits percentage-wise. In the 90's, immigrants accounted for 5% of CEO's, Catholics for about 7% and Jews around 6%.

What accounts for so little change in a hundred years? According to Harvard Professor Rakesh Khurana, the big problem is in how people are recruited and selected for leadership positions: the people who make the selections tend to choose those who are very similar to themselves.

Is it so different in the fire service? Although most fire departments now have promotional testing processes that are intended to eliminate bias and favoritism, does this really result in a level playing field?

One way that favoring those who are like you can play into even a neutral, outside-run promotional process is in the preparation phase. It is natural that people will want to help their friends, or those that they know better, to succeed with promotions. This direct help or indirect mentoring happens long before the promotional test is announced. Some people have more access to important organizational information than others, and those with the best access tend to be those who are most like those already in power. This is true in the corporate world, and it is likewise true in other organizations. It may not be conscious, but it is also not surprising that each generation of leaders tends to mirror that which came before it.

Is it possible to change this pattern? The first step to change is recognition that the condition exists, and that diversity in leadership is a good thing. Once leaders accept that they might be unconsciously favoring certain groups or types of people for positions, then there must be a concerted effort to change that behavior. The best antidote to bias, of any kind, is awareness. Are you giving all department members equal access to training, to professional development opportunities, to a variety of work assignments? Are expectations high and achievable for all employees, no matter what their backgrounds are or how they look? Do those in leadership roles understand what it means to be a mentor and how to act in that capacity? Do people consciously challenge stereotypes, reputations and gossip and allow individuals to achieve according to their own merit and abilities?

When you can answer yes to all these questions, you will be well on the way to achieving truly diverse leadership. But the first step is honestly asking and answering the questions.

Source: New York Times, May 9, 2004

 

Since 1994, the military has discharged 10,000 people as a result of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy which precludes those who identify themselves as gay or lesbian from serving in the armed forces. The majority of those discharged were active duty enlisted personnel in the early stages of their careers. Hundreds of those discharged held high level job specialties including 90 nuclear power engineers, 150 rocket and missile specialists, 49 nuclear, chemical and biological warfare specialists, and 89 linguists, including seven who specialized in Arabic languages.

Source: Associated Press, June 21, 2004

Supreme Court Considers Constructive Discharge

Nancy Suders was hired as a dispatcher for the Pennsylvania State Patrol in 1998. From the time she was hired, she claimed she was severely sexually harassed by her supervisors, with behaviors including sexually explicit language and gestures, and degrading comments directed at her. She complained about the behavior but there was no follow up. Finally, she quit the job, and subsequently filed a lawsuit against her employer for hostile environment harassment and constructive discharge.

Constructive discharge is a legal term first defined in the 1930's as a result of labor disputes. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) developed the doctrine to address situations in which employers coerced employees to resign, often by creating intolerable working conditions, in retaliation for those employees' union activities. The concept has more recently been applied to Title VII harassment cases.

The recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding Ms. Suder's case has made steps toward defining when constructive discharge applies to harassment cases, and under what conditions it will result in absolute liability for the employer. The decision reversed a ruling by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, which applied a broad standard of liability to the employer in this case, and did not rule out absolute liability for employers in some cases.

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals had said that if constructive discharge was a factor, employers would have absolute liability for harassment, the same as if there had been a defined and tangible employment action initiated by the employer (such as firing, demotion or significant reassignment.) In such cases, employers would not have access to the affirmative defense defined in 1998 with the cases Burlington Industries v. Ellerth and Faragher v. Boca Raton.

The Supreme Court did not agree. Its modified stance said that when constructive discharge is the direct result of an employer action, then absolute liability may result. In other cases, such as in the case of Ms. Suders, the employer would still have access to the 1998 defense against liability for workplace harassment. This defense requires that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior AND that the plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to otherwise avoid harm.

The case was remanded back to circuit court for reconsideration in light of this decision. The effect of the decision seems to be that employers will have more room for defending themselves against hostile environment harassment by supervisors, but will still be held strictly liable for harassment that results in tangible employment actions, including some (but not all) types of constructive discharge.

Source: Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, U.S. Supreme Court, 03-95

© Linda F. Willing, 2004