MUTUAL MISTRUST: TODAY'S WORKPLACE


As many of you know, the workplace does not always provide the most
hospitable environment. News of mergers and downsizings fill the pages of the
newspaper. The unexpected, large-scale layoffs at profitable companies, or rapid
divestiture of recently acquired companies, convince employees that many corporate
restructurings make little sense. It is hardly surprising that millions of Americans have
become bewildered and bitter when confronted by fresh vulnerability.

Those fortunate to survive the realities of corporate redefinition still face a
workplace that is hostile toward and suspicious of employees. These tendencies are
endemic to the American workplace, maintained through a system of outmoded practices
that only inhibit productivity.

Let's look at the cornerstone of standard employment relations: the employee
handbook. The handbook, or personnel manual, is the tool by which the employer
communicates its expectations to employees, and through which it boasts about benefits
that it provides. Through the use of benevolent tone and language, the employer tries to
elicit cooperation from its employees.

The problem for employers is that they don't really want to be pinned down by
the handbook. They want the flexibility to change the terms of the handbook at will.
When courts throughout the country ruled the handbook language can create a contract,
employers responded with the famous "D" word: disclaimer. Disclaimers state that
descriptions of procedures in the handbook are illustrative only, and can be changed at
any time. Look in your handbook. It has a disclaimer.

Look further. To remove any expectations that adherence to conditions may
actually ensure long-term employment, most handbooks explicitly state that employees
can be terminated at any time. So, what are employers really saying in their handbooks?
"These are our rules and we expect you to follow them. We are going to change them if
they don't suit us, and fire you if you don't suit us. This strategy has also made its way
into job applications, many of which contain the warning that the employee can be fired
"at will". Interviewers also are pledged to adhere assiduously to this script of non-
commitment. Any prospect of longevity is removed from the hiring process. Can any
employee be motivated by this usage?

What then is the constructive purpose of the handbook? No law requires a
handbook. Any notice employers are legally required to provide to their employees can,
indeed must, be given independently of the handbook. For instance, the summary plan
description must be provided annually, and COBRA requirements must be
communicated upon termination. Moreover, is it really necessary to notify employees
that they can be disciplined for intoxication, dishonesty, poor performance, excessive
tardiness and a host of other routine workplace rules? When is the last time you saw
employees consult the handbook when they had a question about one of your practices?

Serving little legal purpose, offering information of marginal significance and
underscoring the message of vulnerability, handbooks do little more than provoke
employees to inflated and inaccurate perceptions of their rights. If the goal, as employers
so often state, is to demonstrate fairness to employees and promote the welfare of the
workplace community, the handbook is not the way to do it.

One alternative is a real contract-a document that provides the employee with real
protections and opportunities, but only in exchange for specific responsibilities
undertaken by the employee. Does this sound far-fetched? Absolutely. Why? Because the
vast majority of employers believe that employees have neither the skill, intelligence nor
responsibility to justify sharing power with them. As a result, employment relations is at
a stalemate based on mutual mistrust. Let's take a look at another employment
convention that deepens this distrust: the performance appraisal.

Let's face it. Performance appraisals are typically one-sided, allowing no
meaningful employee input. They are judgmental and intimidating, rather than evaluative
and guiding. They tend to be based on general and vague criteria and are rarely effective
in describing the employees' faults. They are often transparently used simply to justify
other employment action on compensation or discipline, fueling employee cynicism.

Can employees whole-heartedly engage in activity they perceive as useless, unfair
and intimidating? Of course not. The people who seem to forget this are lawyers who
keep urging their employer clients to do appraisals to "minimize liability" without
recognizing the horrendous impact on productivity.

Is it possible to measure this impact? No. Not without extensive empirical tests
that have not yet been performed, in part because few HR professionals or scholars
recognize the potential value of such measures. However we know that negative impact
on productivity exists. Can anybody deny that commitment and motivation are built over
time in the workplace? Or that once commitment and motivation decline, they tend to
keep declining. Isn't the whole concept of progressive discipline based on that
expectation? Is the relationship between management and labor any different than that
between participants in any other relationship? If the relationship is not maintained and
fails to grow, it atrophies and dies.

Is there a better way to do performance appraisals? How about a new kind of
document generated at the time of hire, that sets out not just the "essential functions" of
the job but the goals of each side? Even employees at the lowest level can be guided to
articulate some sense of their goals: skills they would like to learn, strengths they expect
to bring, weaknesses to address. Do they expect to be promoted? On what basis? To what
job? How long do they expect to stay with the company? How can the company help
them achieve these goals? If employees can't come up with a sense of what they're
attempting to accomplish or can contribute, you may wonder how productive they are
capable of being. If supervisors can't articulate how they wish an employee to develop,
can they can effectively supervise?

The plan would be revised periodically, not just once a year, as the strengths or
weaknesses of the employee become apparent, and as the employee and supervisor begin
to define their goals. This may seem radical, yet it's a simple shift from judgment and
fault-finding to guidance and evaluation.

The idea of a partnership of guidance and growth can be applied with special
benefit in an area of conspicuous importance these days: sexual harassment. What
happens when sexual harassment is charged by an employee or discovered by the
employer? Typically, the employer launches a sexual harassment investigation. The
investigation is regarded as an indispensable element in limiting liability. As a rule, the
investigator is assigned to assess culpability and recommend appropriate disciplinary and
corrective action. Corporate investigators, or their lawyers, take evidence from "victim"
and perpetrator"-often in closed sessions cloaked in unnecessary formality, one side at a
time. Co-workers become enmeshed as witnesses and then fuel the rumor mill.

Finally, a decision is rendered. If the investigator has assigned guilt, one side is
left embittered and the other, at best, with a vengeful vindication. If the investigation is
inconclusive, charges of white-wash are leveled by both sides. Some employers even feel
compelled to disseminate the result to all involved, including co-workers, further
polarizing the workforce. The affect on the work environment cannot be but widespread
and debilitating.

What are the tangible results of this process: workforce polarization and a
consequent drop in productivity. Aren't there more creative options could reduce this
situation? If the goal is restoring a work environment fouled by the harassment or the
charge of harassment, is assigning blame the way to do it? Well many would say yes,
because employment practices are so rooted in distrust and a generally low assessment of
employees. There is. of course, an alternative. For instance, sexual harassment mediation.

The focus of mediation is not on assigning blame, but on repairing the work
atmosphere. Employees would be notified when taking the job, that they have a
commitment to contribute to the company's ongoing success. This means helping to solve
problems when they arise. If a sexual harassment problem arises-whether the employee is
an alleged perpetrator or a target-the employee may be required to help solve the
problem by going to mediation. A company has no obligation to make it easy for its
employees to sue. If the employee wants to sue, he or she can quit and do so. If they want
to continue working, they should stay and work it out even if a suit is filed. It's that
simple.

The concept underlying sexual harassment mediation, the job plan instead of the
performance appraisal, and the employee compact instead of the handbook, is mutual
responsibility toward to the community called the workplace It is not based on empty
words but definable responsibilities. Of course employers have been trained to avoid the
obligations of contract at any cost. However, until there is stronger evidence of respect
flowing from employers and a commensurate assumption of responsibilities from
employees, the workplace will continue to be the breeding ground of distrust and
litigation.