In May of this year, the Office of Personal Management (OPM) issued comprehensive guidance to federal employers regarding the employment of transgender individuals. With regards to the use of bathrooms, the guidance states,
“The Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (DOL/OSHA) guidelines require agencies to make access to adequate sanitary facilities as free as possible for all employees in order to avoid serious health consequences. For a transitioning employee, this means that, once he or she has begun living and working full-time in the gender that reflects his or her gender identity, agencies should allow access to restrooms and (if provided to other employees) locker room facilities consistent with his or her gender identity. While a reasonable temporary compromise may be appropriate in some circumstances, transitioning employees should not be required to have undergone or to provide proof of any particular medical procedure (including gender reassignment surgery) in order to have access to facilities designated for use by a particular gender. Under no circumstances may an agency require an employee to use facilities that are unsanitary, potentially unsafe for the employee, or located at an unreasonable distance from the employee’s work station. “

This policy, developed in conjunction with the LGTB community, focuses on the need for sensitivity to an employees gender identity, allowing for flexibility during transition, but not drawing the line at whether or not the individual has had sexual reassignment surgery. This is in contrast to current employment practice in the state of Minnesota, which is guided by a Minnesota Supreme Court, in Goins v. West Group, 635 N.W.2d 717 (Minn. 2001), ruled that transgendered individuals cannot claim discrimination if their employers require them to use a bathroom consistent with their biological gender, as opposed to their self image gender. It is important to note that in this case, the term “transgender” was defined as people who “seek to live as a gender other than the biological gender attributed to them at birth, but without surgery. (emphasis added.) While the intention of this post is to provide some practical perspective on this matter, I can’t help but provide my readers with a fairly comprehensive critique of Minnesota’s ruling (and a similar one in NY) ranging from potential conflict to the ADA to the court’s simply not understanding that SRS involves only a very few parts of the body not generally exposed in a public rest room.

This focus on bathrooms speaks to something important; that employers are doing little to educate employees about gender identity. Bathroom fears arise from several misconceptions:

MISCONCEPTION #1 sexual orientation and gender identity are the same thing. They are not. Gender identity refers to the strong and persistent identification of oneself as male or female. Such identity may precede any sexual orientation at all, since it can arise in very early childhood. Sexual orientation, on the other hand, is the romantic or sexual attraction to men or to women or to both. Transgender people, just as people who have not transitioned, may, therefore, have any sexual orientation.
MISCONCEPTION #2 transgender individuals are a threat in the bathroom because they will be interested in looking at the genitals of those whose gender they identify with. This is where ideology meets absurdity. The fact is that the vast majority of people who enter bathrooms have one or two things on their mind — elimination and/or hygiene. Transgender people at work are…at work. They think about their gender no more or no less than anyone else, and are no more or less inclined to have leering on their mind.
MISCONCEPTION #3 People whose sexual orientation is towards the same gender will receive sexual gratification from being in a bathroom with same-gendered people. It’s hard not to be snarky about this one…after all, there seems to be a true absence of workplace-bathroom-crimes-of-passion over the past hundred years while gay and lesbian people have been using same-gendered bathrooms; but let’s not go there. Instead, let’s speak to the obvious. Employers cannot predict what might arouse each of their many employees, but they can, and generally do make clear through their sexual harassment policies that ANY overtly sexual behavior in the workplace such as leering, making advances, following someone into the restroom for purposes of sexual gratification) is considered inappropriate. There is no data to suggest that either gender identity or sexual orientation is a factor in sexually harassing behavior — in fact, the majority of reported sexual harassment is between heterosexual individuals of the same or opposite sex ( a brief nod to Oncale, the Supremes case which recognized same sex harassment by heterosexual men)

And now, we get to the heart of the matter. Bathrooms become the battle ground because employers confuse their employee’s misconceptions with legitimate gripes. This in part is because employers don’t always provide anti-discrimination training that once and for all distinguish CONDUCT from STATUS.

BUILDING THE RIGHT STUFF INTO YOUR ANTI DISCRIMINATION TRAINING

When providing anti discrimination training, I always include a hypothetical such as.
“A devoutly religious employee learns that her new office mate is gay. She objects on religious grounds and asks that the individual office elsewhere.”
I ask the participants to describe what the company should do, and it is here that participants are often stymied between the “religious rights” of the employee and the obligation of the employer. This provides an opportunity to ask people the degree to which employees should be able to identify status preferences in their coworkers, or, for that matter, supervisors to identify status preferences in their employees. I offer up the example, for instance, that a Jewish employee asks not to work with anyone of German descent, or an African American asks not to work with white southerners –or a supervisor will not hire a person from New Jersey because his cousin was robbed by someone from New Jersey (sorry New Jersey.) Quickly, participants grasp that status cannot be the basis for discrimination. This allows me to move into the more sensitive area of transgender employees– and to point out that we cannot ask our employers to “protect” us from other qualified workers based on what we think they might do, but instead, we focus on what they actually do. If someone, for instance, is discussing their sexual activity in detail, or someone is evangelizing in an unwelcome manner, an employer will most certainly respond.

Finally, it is worth clarifying to participants in training that each of us has a set of values that are profound, important and personal. We can acknowledge that for some of us, those values generate strong feelings, biases and blind spots. Those are their values, and an employer has no business trying to change them; however, when they come to work, the organization’s values are the values that must guide them, and should their behavior be inconsistent with the values of the organization, the employee could find themselves disciplined for that behavior, including making statements that are bigoted, prejudicial, based on unfortunate stereotypes or inciting fear or anxiety. Thus, the employer protects them from behavior they object to, and protects everyone from having their status impugned by those who disagree with them.

In this time of economic challenges, full plates, individual and organizational stress, employers must be highly proactive to ensure that the organization fully engages its people, free from the unnecessary and divisive distractions brought about by a lack of education and awareness about diversity issues.

Several years ago, I investigated the work environment in a large nonprofit organization. After several complaints emerged of discrimination based on national origin/ethnicity/religion, they asked me to conduct an inquiry. Each and every one of the complainants was credible, and pointed out actions of management and supervisors, coworkers and even clients that they felt showed animus. Some had been disciplined in ways they felt were unfair. Others “knew” of incidents that supported their view that the organization was toxic. In one case, a complainant had been accused of misusing a piece of equipment, and pointed out that his majority coworker had used the equipment in the exact same manner with impunity. A second described a supervisor repeatedly calling attention to his protected class, making him feel uncomfortable. Because the 8 complainants had come together and shared their data prior to complaining, they felt absolutely certain that their data set was legitimate. The organization was poisoned with racism from the very top.

Speaking with management was equally challenging. For every specific incident, there was a different perspective. The equipment usage had not been the same, and the documents showed that this was the case. The supervisor who referred to protected class was concerned about the employee’s constant accusations of racism and had asked what could be done to diminish that perception. The employees were “plotting,” “jumping on the bandwagon,” and “were the real discriminators.” There was no basis for the complaints, and that was that.

As an investigator, we are stuck with facts, and it was with great regret that I stuck to my role and reported that while some incidents reported were accurate, many others were disputed fairly and by evidence. Those are the days when being an investigator is frustrating, because through the process of listening to the stories and sentiments of all of the parties involved, it became clear that the question before the organization was not just the legal one regarding the weight of the evidence, but the organizational challenge as to how the organization would move forward.

That gets me back to intractable, or seemingly intractable conflicts, and the valuable perspective that interest based conflict management brings to the table. My two “bibles” that have informed and supported my work in this area are Getting to Yes by Fisher and Ury and The Mediation Process by Christopher Moore. According to the first, to resolve a conflict,”…each party must…percieve that the continued existence of the other is both necessary and desirable from the point of view of his own self interest.” The second uses the Circle of Conflict to divide conflict into several categories; data conflicts, relationship conflicts, values conflicts, procedural conflicts.Moore’s circle of conflict Moore stresses that data conflicts– simple differences in data –say I thought our meeting was at 3, and you thought it was 2 — can easily become procedural conflicts –you never give me the right information–and then relationships conflicts –you set me up to miss the meeting. To make resolving workplace conflicts effective, it is important to work at the “bottom” of the circle — focusing on data differences, procedural differences and substantive differences, and by getting these worked through, to develop the trust it will take to begin to resolve relationship conflicts.

In workplace conflicts, two inevitable interests are present; for employees and managers, to receive satisfaction and remuneration for their work. For the organization, to get the work done so the organization can meet its goals. Beyond that, there are many more interests, such as (for employees) fairness, dignity, safety, boundaries and (for employers) having policies obeyed, getting good performance, shareholder value, profitability or mission. Identifying and finding common ground in these interests can form the basis for some powerful dialogue, some healing, and some new respect. There can be civility between “warring factions.” I know, because I have facilitated these meetings. Not to say it is easy. These interventions are time consuming, they are often emotionally intense, they require caucusing to reduce defensiveness and strict ground rules to keep the process afloat. Nevertheless, this type of arduous process of listening for interests and finding common ground may present the only sustainable resolution to the polarization and destruction of two or more groups with profoundly different realities. Absent that, there will simply be more eruptions of conflict fed by the sense that the concerns of all were not taken seriously, and those things wanted — have not resulted. The goal is to move away from what people “want” to what their interests are, and focusing on creating a road map to make sure those interests stay front and center. I for instance, have seen seemingly impossible conflicts softened by having participants describe what being “respected” would look like or feel like. Or to have people passionately speak to the importance of their work in their life, and how events have affected them. At the bottom line, finding what we have in common and exploring shared interests humanizes the process in a way that rights-based or position-based resolution cannot.

It seems that at work and in Washington if you can get past what people ‘want” in order to win, and get to what their shared interests are, in order to go forward together, there is a far greater chance of enduring, principled solutions. Unfortunately, to get there, we need to find ways to get past the legal fictions of “right” and “wrong,” and find our way to shared interests.

It is far from me to spot sexism lurking under every rock or bush. I am not quite a post-feminist woman, but one who has asserted myself sufficiently to believe that with some effort, women will get the same respect as men. Nevertheless, it was just weeks later when, on a flight to London, I decided a glass of wine would be nice. I walked back to the galley where the flight attendants were chatting and asked if I might have some wine. They refused, stating their paperwork was done and the beverages put away. I returned to my seat and mentioned to my (male) partner that I thought it was odd that the beverages had been put away mid flight. He excused himself and returned moments later with two wines and a great big grin. Needless to say, I was outraged. It was a second example in a very short time of the existence of male privilege.

Privilege is the invisible cloak that is worn by people who are treated with greater deference and respect than others based on their identity. It is the unconscious source of what is variously termed “Microaggression” or “Microinequity,”. When one has privilege, it does not mean one has asked for it. In fact, the challenge of raising the specter of privilege in the organizational world is that many who wear this invisible cloak would be offended at the prospect that they do! We may get glimpses of it, but privilege is hard to put our finger on. That I cash a check at my bank without being asked for ID is, for instance, simply a matter of fact. That the African American woman in front of me was asked for ID could be written off for any one of a number of reasons, the least of which might occur to me is that I was afforded a privilege she was not. The result, however, is that she likely has sufficient experience of being denied the privileges I am readily granted. While I proceed in my life considering myself inclusive and egalitarian, she feels the subtle, cumulative disrespect that defines micro-offenses.

In current racial dialogue, there is a form of individual racism termed “subtle bias” or “aversive racism” that compares starkly to “traditional” racism. People who engage in aversive racism are sympathetic to victims of past injustice, support the principle of racial equality, and regard themselves as non-prejudiced, but at the same time possess negative feelings about people of certain races, religions, or backgrounds. These two opposing sets lead to nondiscriminatory attitudes and behavior when there are strong social norms in place, but may result in discriminatory behavior when situations are vaguer or the normative structure is weak.

Jack Dividio, Phd and Samuel Gaertner, Phd are leading researchers on subtle bias. They found for instance, that in personnel or college admission selection decisions, White people do not discriminate on he basis of race when candidates have very strong or weak qualifications, but they do discriminate when the candidates have moderate qualifications and the appropriate decision is more ambiguous. In these circumstances those demonstrating aversive racism weigh the positive qualities of white applicants and the negative qualities of black applicants more heavily.

Putting these together, the combating of subtle bias is formidable; the display of micro insults by those in the “privileged” group is often inadvertent; interruptions, body movement, even subtleties of eye contact accompany the things that must be included. These accumulate and strongly affect the person who is experiencing, over time, what might be referred to as “death by a thousand cuts,” yet much of the subtle racism is perpetrated by well meaning, egalitarian people who would vehemently protest being labeled racist!

Let’s dig in even further. Imagine if I’d angrily confronted the teller at my bank, suggesting that she was being subtly discriminatory in her ID’ing of the African American woman when she did not check my identification. No doubt, she’d had a very good reason for checking that ID, and she would defend it. It could become a very hostile encounter. Therefore, I say nothing, the behavior continues, and I am complicit. If we take that simple encounter and we bring it to the workplace, where occurrences may happen frequently, we not only have the likelihood that the slights and micro insults would be taken more personally and painfully, but that bystanders of good will would be less likely to confront them, lest they be viewed as thin skinned or conflictual.

To combat subtle bias, we need to find a way to recognize our cloaks and to become mindful of the implicit messages we send and the ones we receive; to get to, as one analyst calls it, “the DNA of inter group relations,” by recognizing the privileges we may be granted and the slights we may overlook. We must avoid being annoyed at what may seem to be thin skinnedness when someone calls our attention to these slights– because their experience of them is far more important that our intention. More than that, we need to find ways to provide and receive feedback that is neither punitive nor destructive, but instructive and welcome. This flies in the fact of traditional status dynamics, where criticizing someone of greater rank is often hazardous to one’s health, but wise leaders will recognize that the feedback will help them to shape the culture of inclusion that most truly wish to foster.

It has been a constant theme in my work of late to have employees discuss their concerns about political discussions in the workplace. When describing prohibited conduct, including protected class harassment, I am frequently asked about individuals who foist their views on others, who name call those without shared beliefs, or who attempt to rile up those with views different from theirs. I am asked if this is ‘harassment’ and must respond that it is not usually unlawful harassment (unless there are offensive protected-class related comments), but it certainly disrupts the workplace. With great frequency, the follow-on question is whether people should discuss politics at work.

How are we to answer this question? I tend to reflexively turn to the model that places politics in the “values” column, with the conventional wisdom being that discussing values in the workplace is risky — predominantly because if one’s values differ from a coworker’s it might be difficult to reconcile the opposing viewpoints sufficiently to continue to work together with good will. This is why we don’t have casual conversations about, say, abortion, or the existence or non-existence of heaven or hell; too often, an opposing belief creates personal animus that can sabotage effective workplace relationships.
Values, Attitudes, Behavior

Certainly there are legions of advisers who agree that discussing politics at work is divisive. Others note the geometric effect that social media has on creating complexity in workplace debates about politics.. They are right. Discussing politics at work is…well, impolitic, and risky.

I wonder, however, if the evolving workplace might someday provide a tonic to the tone of today’s political discourse. If we think about it, the workplace is uniquely bounded by policy, rule and culture. Good employers expect employees to value diversity and to behave respectfully and civilly in order to ensure high performance. These organizations have been working hard to let people bring their differences to work. In these places, conflict is managed maturely and well. Perhaps it is in those workplaces we will ultimately find the model for the rest of America; the America that understands that alignment of purpose does not mean agreement on strategy, and that different voices make for a great chorus.

It’s a challenge; if you and I work together, respect one another, trust one another and have much in common, perhaps we can resolve to have a discussion about our differences in a civil, respectful manner. Perhaps the workplace provides us a forum to listen to understand rather than to persuade. In other words, if all is going well, we are at our best in the workplace. We are hopefully surrounded by people who we value. Maybe it is at the workplace where we appreciate the contribution someone is making that we can hear views different from our own and recognize that not everyone who disagrees with us has to be one of the vilified “others.”

Is this idealistic? Absolutely, but as a consultant who spends time with organizations at their darkest hours as well as during their brightest days, I find the capacity to listen without judgment, hear diverse perspectives, learn to live with those who see the world differently and embrace conflict as energy to be harnessed leads to organizations that excel in every respect. What a wonderful possibility it is that the workplace could be a model for the larger society, and in turn become even a better place to make a contribution. It is certainly worth considering.

Title Bad HR Part I The Harassment Complaint.

I found several years ago that when educating about workplace behavior, the Golden Rule came up short. Too often, people would say “Well, I wouldn’t care if someone said/did that to me.” Very often, these were bullies or harassers who lacked the empathy or sensitivity to recognize others’ perspectives. I even had one bad actors’ wife arrive to a coaching session with her spouse to explain that she found his behavior acceptable. As a matter of pedagogy and also for purposes of making culture change in organizations, I had to find a way to bring this to the next level.

My thinking led me to this: if we modify the rule slightly, changing it from “Treat others as you would like to be treated,” to “Treat others as THEY would have you treat them,” it increases the complexity of civil behavior substantially, but also reflects the challenges of the real world. Civil and respectful behavior compels a need to understand others and modify our conduct to accommodate THEIR world view. An example I provide is the profound aversion I feel when I hear well-intentioned people saying that this is a “Christian Nation.” As a child of holocaust survivors, it kicks off a ton of aversive feelings and ideas programmed into me at an early age. “But,” cry the learners….”how can we avoid stepping on every landmine?” Some would argue that my response is thin skinned. Others would roll their eyes and moan about “political correctness,” but the fact is that if I tell you it offends me, you can show me that I’m worth a minor modification in your terminology, or that I’m not. One will improve our relationship. One will sour it. So, how to reckon with this? The answer is twofold:

1) In the world of the modified golden rule, it is my responsibility to provide you with feedback. To let you know that my world view is different from yours. I might say “I know that this seems like an innocuous term to you, but it offends me.” This means that I have to be willing to risk triggering a defensive reaction in you, demonstrate courage and give you the opportunity to do the right thing. It’s hard, but necessary.

2) In the world of the modified golden rule, you now know how I’d like to be treated, and you have the opportunity to treat me as I would like to be, even if it is dissimilar from your view on the term. You need to accept that my view is different from yours. Not better, not right, not correct, but different, and that your reaction can build or damage our future interactions.

I’m a pragmatist. I know that speaking up is hard. It is hard to give someone negative feedback. We are largely programmed to “suck it up” when someone bugs us. If you don’t buy that, think to the last time you were on an airplane, and someone wanted to talk to you, but you did not want to talk to them. Did you tell them to leave you alone, or did you signal your discomfort non verbally, or at all? We calculate that it is better to tolerate the unwelcome behavior than to risk offending or upsetting the seatmate.

I assert that while we can afford to tolerate the temporary intrusion of a stranger in a temporary situation, that we must develop a different set of behaviors for our workplaces, where we go each and every day and must carve out a place where we can get our work done in the best possible way. To get to this place, we have to first feel safe to speak up, and secondly we need to learn to take critical feedback on our utterances and actions that may make us defensive, but to view them as key information about what it will take to build a relationship with the person in question. This can only happen when the leaders in the C-Suite demonstrate receptivity, emotional intelligence and the capacity to take criticism and candor (One of the best books on this subject is Michael Roberto’s “Why Great Leaders don’t take Yes for an Answer”)

So, the modified golden rule means this: if every employee, from the top of the organization to the last hired, knows they can speak up if something offends them, and every employee, from top to last hired will do their best to listen, understand and accommodate the concern, you will have a workplace that not only is free from expensive and painful litigation, but you will become an employer of choice.

I like to think of myself as a capacity builder – someone who teaches the companies and attorneys who hire me the very best practices. I have spoken at national legal conventions, state bar conventions and a variety of iterations of SHRM or its local affiliates throughout the nation. In addition, I have done in- house investigative training for companies large to small. In these endeavors, I tout investigations that are done according to rigorous protocol, with an eye to professionalism, fairness and accuracy. In doing so, perhaps I have come to accept that there is widespread understanding of “the basics.” This is an effort to discuss those “basics” in a straightforward and hopefully helpful way. The following, then is a list of the ten essential qualities of a defensible, professional and neutral investigation.

1) Establish “standard practice” for investigations in your organization and don’t deviate without careful consideration.
This should include well thought-out policies regarding the scope of organizational need-to-know, interviewing practice (2:1? 1:1?), whether or not you obtain written statements and when, recording or not recording interviews and how parties are to be separated in the workplace pending the outcome of an investigation. These are important issues that require research, thought, discussion and dissemination. In the scrutiny of investigations, inconsistent practice is the enemy.

2) Conduct Investigations that are Fair and Transparent.
Avoid investigations that take the tone of interrogation or cross examination. Questions should be open ended, and parties should be permitted to tell their “story” without being driven towards the investigator’s expected outcome. Additionally, interviewees should be told the consequences of not cooperating, the way their information will be used, the reasons to refrain from discussion about the matter, and about protections from reprisal and retaliation. In the best of worlds, this should be done in written form so they can take it with them should they have questions later.

3) Interview Effectively
A good interview allows for an individual to present their perspective on a situation prior to being asked to detail specific facts. The psychology of employee complaints suggests that rushing to get the details will net an investigator less accurate information than if the employee is first able to respond to a wide open question such as “what happened between you and John this morning?” Once the narrative has been completed, clarification should be elicited through neutral, fact-oriented questions, and only once this is complete should the interview take on a tone of challenging or attempting to break down the facts presented.

4) Assess Credibility
Many investigators throw up their hands and find they can’t draw conclusions because it is a “he said, she said” case. Very often, these cases can turn on the credibility of one or more of the parties. Investigators should consider things such as contemporaneous complaints or documentation, prior untruthfulness, motives to lie or to be truthful or versions of events that in some way don’t hold together properly. Investigators must document the basis for such credibility assessments and be persistent in testing the credibility of parties. Often a credibility assessment will generate at least a “sense” of which version was more likely to be true.

5) Gather Evidence
We live in a world full of electronic footprints. Card swipes, e-mail, texts, surveillance cameras, cell phone chips, computers, I pads and I pods, USB sticks, pagers, smart phones and more create a track of data we should and can exploit. There are certain limits, and one should clearly be operating inside legal boundaries, but for the most part, if it is an employer-provided electronic device, the employer has access. The two rules of evidence gathering are; once you know there is evidence (a diary, contemporaneous documentation, an email) take possession of it immediately, and make sure the person who provides the evidence agrees that it is authentic.

6) Avoid Leakage
Up until the investigator is prepared to draw conclusions, others should not be briefed about initial impressions, premature conclusions, or intended interviewees. The only information that should be shared is that which an individual must know in order to allow the investigation to be conducted. This will irritate many a manager and executive, but such sharing of information creates a greater probability of reprisal claims as well as a greater probability the investigation will be seen as biased.

7) Maintain Independence
Interview those who need to be interviewed, review documents that must be reviewed, seek out witnesses who have not come forward and interview those fearful of reprisal away from the workplace or by telephone if necessary. Do not under any circumstances be dictated by a list provided to you of who you should or must interview, and certainly do not let yourself be constrained by an organization’s insistence that you refrain from interviewing certain parties. If these are the conditions of an investigation, it is flawed and will be judged appropriately.

Don’t Lawyer the Investigation
Investigations are fact finding exercises, not the forum for legal analysis. Law degree or no, this is not the place to determine whether conduct was unlawful, or whether it rises to the standard of a hostile environment, or to point out theories of defense. Facts are facts, and the investigation should stand on findings of fact that are supported by the interviews, evidence and credibility assessment. If the employer subsequently concludes that policies have been violated, or litigation is pending, the facts should be used as the basis for an attorney’s (NOT the investigators) legal advice.

9) Don’t Label
An investigation is an attempt to find facts. A neutral investigator assumes nothing. Therefore, there is no such thing as a “sexual harassment investigation,” and an investigation should not be termed such. Rather, there is an investigation into allegations of misconduct. Period. By prematurely classifying the outcome of the investigation, one is creating far more spin on their enterprise than is desirable. Furthermore, refrain from describing investigations as “substantiated” or “unsubstantiated” or “true” or “false.” Any time in the world of employment investigations will expose a person to the reality that the facts found rarely fully support the complaint or the response, but fall somewhere between.

10) Know When to Use an Outside Investigator
Sure, an outside investigator bring with him or her an extra cost, but when the matter is complex, there is a high risk of litigation, the person accused of wrongdoing is high status, or the internal investigators are relatively inexperienced, the cost of an investigation without sharp corners can create unnecessary and very costly exposure. The Human Resources professionals I train do several investigations a year. Most external investigators do in excess of 30. Would you pick a surgeon who had done a procedure a few times over one who knew how to do a procedure at an expert level? Experience is truly important in high stakes investigations, and your internal people will learn a lot from how it is done.

BOUNDARIES Employees need to believe their privacy is respected and that they can have a boundary between their personal life and their home life. Employers need to respect those boundaries, and set boundaries of their own with regard to conduct that is acceptable and unacceptable.

AFFIRMATION People want to know what they are doing well. Employees want recognition and reward to align with what their employers tell them. Employees need to know that they are valued for what they contribute and who they are. Employers need to have rigorous recognition systems and opportunities to celebrate success.

SAFETY Employee safety from physical, psychological and emotional harm is essential. Workplace safety programs, strong anti-harassment and bullying measures and an environment supporting creativity and productive risk taking allows employees to feel safe enough to demonstrate creativity and stretch. Employers can support positive steps for a respectful work environment and encourage new ideas.

IDENTITY No one wants to leave their identity at home when they come to work. Letting people bring their entire self with them means valuing differences, supporting those differences through excellent diversity practices and creating a leadership capacity that accepts different ways of thinking, working and being.

CONNECTION A workplace where people are truly connected is fully of creative energy. People are encouraged to build relationships that go beyond the superficial, and to take time to learn about one another. When someone asks “How are you?” they listen for the answer. When someone is going through a difficult time, they get support and will give that same support in turn to others when they need it. Employers encourage connection by building opportunities for networking, creating teams across silos, incorporating playfulness into work, and delegating to teams.

If employers focus on these five key qualities, they will be doing the things that make them employers of choice, and build engaged, satisfied and creative employees. If you’d like to learn more about building BASIC workplace strategies, contact Sepler & Associates.<a

The document can be found at this link