 June/July
2005 Issue Number 72
 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.
enter your email
address
FDIC East October 4-8, 2005 Atlantic City, NJ
Women Chief Officers Leadership Conference October 20-23, 2005, Bucks County, PA. Go to www.womenfireofficers.org for more information.
Fire-Rescue
International
August 9-13, 2005 Denver, CO. This is a new location for this conference.
Linda Willing will be teaching a pre-conference seminar on August
9th entitled "The Art of Getting Along." Go to www.iafc.org
for more information about the conference.
Don't Cry Now
Public displays of emotion by both sexes are more acceptable than they were even twenty years ago, but crying in the workplace is still taboo, according to Professor Tom Lutz of the University of Iowa. Although women are more likely to cry at work, men also are vulnerable to tears and other displays of emotion, and are more negatively affected when such displays occur. Why do people cry at work? And what can you do to either prevent or mitigate the effect of emotional displays at work?
First, it is important to note that women cry more than men only because men have learned not to cry, not because women are naturally more emotional. Studies show that baby boys and baby girls cry about equally, as do toddlers of both sexes. But somewhere in early childhood, boys learn that crying is not okay, and learn not to do it, although given a strong enough emotional trigger, it may still be an issue for them.
Most people know that crying at work is unacceptable, and do not purposefully allow themselves to do it. But women in particular may be unable to control this response, even as they realize it may reduce their credibility and cause others to feel uncomfortable. Consider the following guidelines for diminishing the effect of crying at work:
If you are prone to tears:
-
Learn why you are crying. Is it anger? Frustration? Fear? Discovering the cause of the crying response will help to control it.
-
Crying is a natural response to stress. Reducing stress will minimize the possibility of uncontrolled crying.
-
One way to reduce stress is to rehearse or role play stressful situations in advance. If you must confront someone about their unacceptable or hurtful behavior, write down exactly what you plan to say and practice saying it before you actually meet with them.
-
Don't let others manipulate you. Everyone has emotional triggers that can lead to unexpected responses. If you feel someone is deliberately trying to make you react emotionally during a professional conversation, end the discussion and resume only when clear ground rules for the discussion are respected.
-
Fighting tears can be more stressful than just quietly allowing them. Bring tissues along and discreetly wipe damp eyes, but otherwise continue with the business at hand.
If you work with someone who tends to cry:
-
Be compassionate with that person and do not assume they are trying to make you feel bad. Offer to take a short break from the discussion, but do not let emotional responses derail the substance of the conversation.
-
Be honest with the other person about the effect their crying is having on others. If the person always bursts into tears whenever criticized, give cause/effect feedback to that person about how their crying makes it difficult to have a constructive conversation.
-
Understand that you do not make others cry. Do not patronize, apologize or otherwise avoid necessary issues.
-
Allow lowkey tears to go unnoticed. Crying is a natural stress response for some people that they may have no control over. If the other person is otherwise in control, continue with business as usual.
-
Offer support for someone who is going through a difficult personal time which may be affecting work performance. Listen without judgment, make people aware of support resources, keep personal confidences private.
Crying is a natural stress response but it can be distracting at work. Be compassionate and professional and don't make too much of occasional tears in the workplace, and it will gradually become less of an issue for everyone.
Source: The New York Times, February 20, 2005
Connecticut has become the second state to offer civil unions to gay couples, and the first state to do so without being forced to through a court decision. The bill was passed with an amendment that defined marriage as between one man and one woman.
Source: Associated Press, April 21, 2005
The Affirmative Defense
No one was trying to argue that Ronald Dale Miller was innocent of sexual harassment against his subordinates Suzzette Williams and Angela Conner. The three worked for the Missouri Department of Mental Health (MDMH), and over the course of several weeks in the spring of 2000, Mr. Miller repeatedly exposed himself to the two women, made sexually explicit comments to them, at times in the presence of clients, and more than once touched or grabbed them in a sexual manner. What the MDMH asserted in court was that they were not liable for Mr. Miller's conduct as a supervisor, because they met the requirements of the affirmative defense available to employers who are accused of hostile environment harassment.
Landmark sexual harassment case law decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1998 established clear liability standards for supervisory harassment. Specifically, these decisions upheld that employers are absolutely liable for quid pro quo harassment by supervisors, but also stated that employers have vicarious liability for hostile environment harassment as well, unless the employer can mount a two part affirmative defense. This defense requires that the employer prove that they did everything possible to prevent and mitigate workplace harassment (through effective policies, education, investigation and action taken on harassment claims) AND that the employee unreasonably failed to make use of these existing systems to stop or prevent the harassment.
The plaintiffs in this case had no problem making a prima facie case of hostile environment harassment based on Mr. Miller's conduct. However, neither woman reported the incidents until five months after Mr. Miller's temporary assignment ended, and then his conduct was only reported under duress when Ms. Williams was reprimanded by a supervisor for another matter. At that point, Ms. Williams made allegations about an unnamed former supervisor, but it was her current supervisor who actually formally reported the behavior and initiated the investigation. Ms. Conner never reported anything. Mr. Miller was put on administrative leave pending the investigation, and he ultimately resigned.
Subsequent to Mr. Miller's resignation, Ms. Williams and Ms. Conner filed suit against their employer for hostile environment harassment. The first court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, and the federal appeals court upheld this decision, saying that the Missouri Department of Mental Health fulfilled all the requirements of the affirmative defense, and thus could avoid liability for Mr. Miller's conduct. Specifically, the court pointed to the following facts in their favorable decision for MDMH:
- The plaintiffs failed to report the harassment in a timely way, or at all.
- The employer had a sexual harassment policy in place, had disseminated the policy to all employees, and provided training on it.
- The employer took action immediately upon getting notice of the harassment, and the action taken prevented future occurrences. The employer also took disciplinary action against the offender.
This case underscores the importance of proper action on everyone's part when workplace harassment occurs. Employers must have effective policies in place, must commit resources to educating personnel about the policies, and must promptly follow up on any claims. But employees must also use those policies to solve problems, and have responsibility for prompt reporting of any misconduct.
Source: Suzzette Williams and Angela Conner v. Missouri Department of Mental Health, 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 04-1510
©
Linda F. Willing, 2005
|
