Chapter 2. Individuality from Soup to Nuts
(Cases and Analyses)

This section presents a series of real-life cases of behaviors and circumstances ranging all the way from just plain annoying to downright astonishing. Your challenge is to ask yourself what, if anything, would you do to address them.

If you are the type who does crossword puzzles with one finger on the answer page and the other on the puzzle, you may want to peruse the Tools and Techniques section (Chapter 4) beforehand, so you can have a leg up on the possible solutions. You will learn either way. In this case, it's not cheating, as long as you're learning!

If you are not that type, you can learn as you go by coming up with your own approaches and then comparing to the expert analyses. Your approaches may very well be better than theirs! Remember, there are almost always several right answers in the world of weirdness.

The Tools and Techniques in Chapter 4 can also serve as a validation and reinforcement of what you have learned and provide you with a nice, succinct and universal summation of when, where, and how to approach virtually any human workplace challenge that might come your way!

Blue Suit Bob

Bob was a brilliant, high-potential, entry-level college graduate engineer, hired to work in the corporate headquarters design department of a leading Fortune 100, transnational manufacturing company. He was recruited on the campus of a prestigious engineering school, and made it through all his interviews with flying colors—primarily blue. He made the right appearance, wearing a standard-issue, conservative blue "interview" suit, blue-and-white power tie, and shined shoes, was clean cut, and came across as a "good fit" for this conservative, professional image-conscious organization. He got the job offer!

Bob was the type who kept to himself, spoke only when spoken to, and was clearly not a boat-rocker. Several months into his tenure, however, people started to notice that Bob was more than just the stereotypical introspective technical type, which they were all used to. The grapevine had him clearly labeled as a weirdo, not only because he seemed the stereotypical eccentric analytical, but particularly because he was never seen wearing anything but his original blue interview suit. Every day. Every week. Everywhere.

The dilemma was that he looked just fine. His attire was not only perfectly appropriate, but would actually be the quintessential "dress for success" look that every conservative corporate headquarters would love to clone. But please! Every day? Eventually everyone but Bob seemed to be aware of the situation, which eventually led to his manager coming to the Human Resources Department for guidance.

Appropriately so, the HR representative suggested a one-on-one, diplomatic, confidential discussion between the manager and Bob in which the manager should mention the situation, and the fact that, as a highly paid professional, he should be able to afford more than one outfit.

The manager did exactly that, to which Bob responded quite glibly, "But I do have more than one outfit! I have five!" They are all blue! Five blue suits, five white shirts, and five generic blue-and-white ties.

When the manager asked why he had such a "weird" wardrobe, Bob said that since his college placement counselor indicated that this was the most appropriate business attire, and since it apparently worked for him in the interview, he decided to just buy multiples of the same outfit. This way he wouldn't have to think about what to wear every day, could interchange them, and therefore apply his brainpower to more important things, like design engineering. Kind of like Einstein! What now?

Analysis

There are a couple of approaches one can take next with Bob. The first one is to do nothing—just leave him alone. In Chapter 4 (Tools and Techniques) you will find a decision-making tool called the Behavioral Change Map, which would have led you to this conclusion. Let's begin by looking at the first step of the Change Map (Figure 2.1) to see how it applies to Bob:

Figure 2.1 First step of the Change Map.

If you follow this logic and ask, "What's the problem?" you are really asking "What is it costing the organization?" or "What is the harm in Bob wearing blue suits?" It has no legitimate bearing on his co-workers, as long as he and his blue suits are clean, right? Is he reliable? Is he contributing? Is he doing his job? If so, the first approach is to focus on what Bob does for a living, and let him live.

There is a critical learning point here. Many people, and especially managers, obsess over things that don't deserve that much time and attention. In fact, many times the cost of intervention exceeds the cost of the perceived problem. This is where you learn to let go.

If, however, you determine that the cost/benefit of doing nothing is out of whack (customer complaints might be an example), then it would be within the right and purview of the employer to counsel again with Bob, and you might request that the next time he goes suit shopping, since no one can wear the same five suits forever, that he jazz up his wardrobe a bit.

You might even give him a complimentary copy of a dress-for-success book; or better yet, spring for a one-time personal fashion consultant to take him shopping. Most of the finer department stores offer this service for free, since they are going to make money on the purchases they select.

As you will discover throughout most of these cases, this is a case where maintaining one's self-esteem is essential. These counseling sessions should be conducted behind closed doors, and no one but you and Bob need to know that he is receiving such guidance. It is appropriate, however, to let Bob know that his co-workers (without naming or revealing anyone's identity) and your customers have lamented about his weird fashion statement, thus making it job-relevant, and not just a personal attack on his lack of good taste.

Finally, if he really wants to hold onto his Einsteinian logic for choosing his attire in the morning (i.e., requiring no thought), have the fashion advisor teach him how to label or color-code his wardrobe so that he automatically knows that if he chooses to wear suit "A" that there is a corresponding tie, belt, shoes, socks, etc., all labeled with a corresponding "A" so all he has to do is pick out all the "A" clothes and put them on. Left-brainers like Bob love this idea! Voilá! Solved!

Hey, you may even want try this yourself! Saves a lot of early-morning brainpower!

A Boy Named Sue

Sue was born Stu. A rough-and-tumble boy who became a rough-and-tumble man. He was a real man's man—a Harley-ridin'- beer drinkin'- ass-kickin' dude who had a knack for fixing engines to the point where he became a professional mechanic, working on the big rigs as a career.

But Stu had a secret. A deep, dark secret. For years, he yearned to be a woman. Not just a cross-dresser, but a full-fledged woman...physically. Eventually, his medical advisors agreed to support his need, determining that it was in his best interests, psychologically, to pursue the long and difficult process of "gender-reassignment" (i.e., a sex change).

Together, they petitioned Stu's employer and ultimately won approval for his surgery to be covered by the company medical plan. Stu was on the road to becoming Sue. So, what's the problem? As word got out and the process had progressed to the point where Stu was receiving hormone therapy, it could no longer be kept a secret. Issues arose among Stu's co-workers. One can only guess the number and types of issues, real or imagined, but we are going to focus on the first one.

One of the first issues to arise via a mechanics' union grievance was the question as to which locker room Stu/Sue should use, and when. It was a Catch-22 among the workforce. Neither the men nor the women were too keen on getting naked and showering next to him/her, particularly during the in-between stages of the process. And when does he officially become a she? A decision had to be made. What's yours?

Analysis

Believe it or not, this is actually a fairly easy one. The employer can defer this decision to the medical profession; specifically his/her own personal physician/psychologist team, as to when an employee uses which locker room while undergoing gender-reassignment. In other words, once Stu/Sue provides a letter of approval or recommendation from his/her doctor(s) that the procedure is advanced to the point where s/he can be considered a woman, then that is when the transfer should occur.

That's all well and good, but let's be practical here. It is still going to be a hard sell to Sue's co-workers. So, in order to ease the transition for everyone, it would also be advisable to inform co-workers as to the basis for the decision (i.e., legal and medical, not arbitrary) and some "sensitivity/diversity" training would be in order, as well. This is not easy for anyone: not for the employee undergoing the transformation, and not for his/her co-workers. There is no denying it; no pretending it will go away; no reason or advantage to side-step reality. It is what it is, and it needs to be out of the closet, just like Stu...or is it Sue?

And before you start crying the blues for Sue, understand that this was her decision, that she got the support of the company medical plan, and that part of her transition counseling includes dealing with all of the personal and emotional issues surrounding such a decision. It's your employees who are being blind-sided and for whom we must also show empathy and provide education.

This is the time to remind all workers of what constitutes sexual harassment and hostile environment and the consequences of it, as well as all the potential legal ramifications of working in today's "new normal" world of work. It doesn't have to revolve exclusively around the issue of Stu/Sue, nor should it, although most people will probably figure it out. Ideally, this type of training and awareness should have been taking place as standard procedure before a case like Stu's ever developed. If it hasn't, this is the time. But even if it has, this is a good time for a refresher course.

As a final aside, this might also be a good time to look at your locker room configurations, and if there is one large, common shower and dressing area, it might be worth considering partitions and more private accommodations. Regardless of the Stu/Sue scenario, most employees would rather dress, undress, and shower in private anyway, male or female. Wouldn't you?

A Boy Named Sue (Part 2)

OK, so now we've dealt with the locker room and sensitivity issues. But the saga continues. It's a year later, the gender-reassignment process is complete, and Sue is wearing dresses and make-up and using the ladies' locker room. Things have settled down somewhat, but now there is a job posting, and Sue bid on it. It's a promotion to a higher-grade position; one which s/he feels qualified to perform.

The job went to another bidder, a man (who has always been a man). Sue felt that she had been a victim of sex discrimination based on her new sex, and she filed suit against her employer. Is this possible? To be sued (no pun intended) by a female employee on the basis of being discriminated against as a woman, that the company subsidized to become a woman?

Analysis

Of course! You can sue for anything in this country! But can you believe that such a complicated case can actually be so easy to resolve? Yes, once again, the decision is an easy one. This case was tested beyond the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) level all the way to the courts, and the ruling has stood that, for purposes of enforcement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, employees are considered to be their sex at birth, regardless of gender-reassignment or any other effort at changing their real or perceived sex.

In other words, in the eyes of the EEOC, Stu is still Stu, and therefore cannot be protected by law as a woman. He can still sue for sex discrimination, but it would have to be as a man. Born a man, you can only be protected as a man. Because another man got the job, there was no basis (prima facie) for a discrimination case on the basis of sex.

As an aside, it is interesting to note that employers are increasingly adopting nondiscrimination policies pertaining to what are now being called GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender) workers, who generally have had no legal protection from being fired if they express a nontraditional gender identity on the job. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a Washington, DC-based advocacy group, now publishes a Corporate Equality Index that rates companies on their policies regarding workers with nontraditional gender identities.

The Devil Made Me Do It!

Ben the Baptist was also a cop. Not a problem, until he was assigned to provide law-enforcement services at a casino. As a Baptist, Ben's belief was not only that he must not gamble, but also that he should do nothing that would help others to do so. Providing law enforcement services, in his mind, would be facilitating others' gambling, and thus he asked for a different assignment. The police department refused his request, so Ben felt he had no choice but to refuse to report for duty, and just stayed home. Does Ben have a religious right to refuse to work in a casino?

Analysis

No. Ben can be disciplined or even terminated. He is not being terminated or disciplined because of his beliefs. He is being terminated or disciplined for insubordination, for failure to report for duty. Allowing Ben or any law enforcement officer to pick and choose his or her assignments is an unreasonable expectation for the employer. It could even have an adverse impact on public safety, to which he and his fellow officers have a sworn duty.

Freedom from Religion?

Here's a new slant on freedom of religion....How about freedom "from" religion? Agnes was hired to be an executive housekeeper for a brand new hotel. One of her duties was to put a copy of the Gideon Bible in every room. During a meeting with her manager and the Gideons, they began to pray and read from the Bible. Agnes, who had no particular religious affiliation, was uncomfortable with the situation, and walked out of the meeting.

When her supervisor called her into his office to discuss this indiscretion, Agnes became quite belligerent and said that she is not required to participate in or be witness to a religious activity, particularly since she is not even a religious person. The conversation went downhill from there, which ultimately led her supervisor to fire her for insubordination. Is Agnes on terra firma or is she going straight to hell?

Analysis

Agnes' downfall is not her religion, but her lack of religion. She cannot claim the hotel discriminated against her because of her beliefs, because she doesn't have any! How can she force the hotel to accommodate her religious beliefs, particularly since the hotel cannot be expected to accommodate every contention that some aspect of a job violates some undefined religious belief?

Case dismissed! Now go straight to purgatory!

Minimum Coverage (Part 1)

Elizabeth, a divorced mother of two, was hired as a receptionist by a prestigious professional services firm, not only because she had the basic skills to do the job (keyboarding, filing, and telephone etiquette), but also because she possessed what used to be called "front office" appearance (before feminism defeated sexism in the world of employment law). Let's be honest. She was a hottie! OK? That doesn't make you a sexist!

Now that we have that established, the plot thickens. Being a divorced mom, Elizabeth worked two jobs to try and make ends meet and to save for her kids' college. In the old days, when it was still legal to hire someone for the front desk because they weren't ugly, holding a second job was called "moonlighting" because it was considered taboo and disloyal, and it was usually done at night. In this case, both might still be true. Why?

Because Elizabeth-by-day was "Betty Boop" by night. She was an exotic dancer. OK, she was a stripper. She wasn't performing in an off-Broadway version of Cats; she was twirling her tassels and bearing it all for tips. Enough said?

The grapevine at work was running rampant with stories and whispers intended for everyone to hear about "Betty's" other job. Eventually the human resources department felt it had no choice but to come out of denial, and to find a way to address the issue head on. Can they? Should they? And if so, how?

Analysis

From a purely legalistic, human resources point of view, it's none of their business. Unless, of course, her late working hours are causing Elizabeth to miss work, come in late, or not be attentive to her job. As you will learn, this will be one of the common answers to a lot of these cases, particularly those which involve an employee's "off-duty" behavior.

If it is not job-related and is not having a significant negative impact on the ability of others to perform or on the overall effectiveness of the organization, generally you should leave it alone. You don't have to love 'em, but in some cases you should just leave 'em alone.

Regarding the grapevine, about all that can be done, without exacerbating the situation, is to meet with all department heads and ask them to remind their employees in staff meetings that it is improper and unprofessional to engage in rumor-mongering and that what people do "off the clock" is generally none of their business. Any good manager should be in touch enough to know which of his or her employees are fertilizing the grapevine, but covering the subject in general as an agenda item at a staff meeting prevents finger-pointing and embarrassment, and is a good first step.

In order to avoid "highlighting" this case, it might be best to communicate the company position along with other periodically required policy announcements and reinforcements, such as sexual harassment policies, confidentiality agreements, conflicts of interest, and safety procedures. Otherwise, making a special issue out this situation could actually make it a bigger one since the grapevine is already well fertilized and receptive to even more manure.

As is the case with most "off-duty" behavior issues, it is next to impossible to create black-and-white policies to anticipate or to address all of them. To attempt to govern all questionable off-duty behavior would not only punish good people in the process, but it could also be viewed as "Big Brother-ism" and do more harm than good for the organization at large.

If, in fact, Betty Boop's job performance is suffering, you should address that, and that alone. You gain nothing and open the door to more problems by "assuming" her night job is to blame. Being a manager doesn't make you a psychic. There could be many causes of tardiness, absenteeism, poor performance, and the like. How do you know she doesn't have a substance abuse problem, or a child care problem, or some other issue?

The bottom line is, it really doesn't matter. Address the performance, give her a deadline for correction, and treat it like any other performance management challenge. As we discovered with Blue Suit Bob, by walking through the Behavioral Change Map, the rule of thumb is that the more one's off-duty behavior negatively affects workplace performance or the business as a whole, the more valid counseling, discipline, and even termination become as an option.

However, there are many federal and state laws that restrict the "at-will" doctrine of employment ("at-will" means you can be fired for any reason or no reason, as long as it's not illegal), and many employment experts believe it is morally wrong to fire people because you do not agree with their behavior or do not like what they do in their spare time.

Minimum Coverage (Part 2)

It gets better (or worse, depending on your perspective)! During a private counseling session with Elizabeth, she said, "I don't see why it is such a big deal that I perform at the club at night, especially since it is OK for the CEO to put ten dollar bills in my garter belt for personal lap dances!" What?

Yes, the CEO was a patron of the bootie club, and wasn't even aware that she was an employee of the firm. Not that it mattered, but now what? What response do you give "Betty" and what, if any, action should be taken regarding the CEO's extracurricular activities? Geeeze!

Analysis

Neither Betty nor the CEO are breaking the law (we assume it is a legal club in their jurisdiction), so technically it is no different than any other off-the-clock behavior that you may find abhorrent. You don't have to like it, but maybe they don't like some of the clubs you belong to either! And he is the boss!

Using the cost/benefit approach of the Behavioral Change Map (see page 140), an optional intervention that may be worthwhile would be to have either the top human resources executive or a close confidant of the CEO talk to him about his after-hours activities, particularly since he seems to be unaware that he is putting greenbacks into the G-string of one of his own employees.

It could even be couched in terms of the potential he has to compromise himself and the company since she is an employee of the company he leads. Putting a little fear of vulnerability in front of a CEO usually has some impact. You may even ask him what he would do if the media got hold of such a story. Again, even though he has the legal right to ogle boobies, he may come to the realization that this is not the type of image he may want to portray as the CEO. Ultimately the CEO sets the tone for everyone in the company, and if he is truly CEO material, he should be able to figure this out. If not, then you have bigger fish to fry.

If all else fails, a well-placed photo can be worth a thousand words! (Just kidding...maybe!)

Hoof-in-Mouth Hal

Hal is a very competent, talented techie. He is also a co-founder of Computergeeksolutions.com which is a company that essentially serves as a contract IT Department for small to mid-sized businesses that cannot afford to, nor justify, having their own IT Departments. His partner, Katie, is also a very competent technologist, and particularly good at sales and marketing calls. They have a staff of tech support personnel who answer customer support calls and go into the field when necessary.

CGS is in its third year of business, and Katie has been quite successful in lining up prospects and leads and "almost" closing deals. The problem is that Hal feels a need, and also a right, to accompany Katie on these sales calls, since he is a co-founder and partner of CGS. Unfortunately he is a one-stop-shop of political incorrectness and tactlessness.

Hal not only says the absolute wrong things at the wrong times to the wrong people, he doesn't even know when to shut up. Just when Katie has them warmed up to buy, Hal manages to stick his hoof in his mouth, and cannot seem to extricate it before the deal sours. Katie has them ready to ask, "Where do we sign?" until Hal gets them to say, "Don't call us, we'll call you!"

Whenever Katie tries to debrief a sales meeting with Hal, in an effort to get him to see the error of his ways, he just discounts everyone else who may be offended by his off-color, sexist, or political remarks as being uptight, too sensitive, or some other more disparaging label. It's never his problem!

But it is Katie's problem because they are losing potential business, not to mention the impact it could eventually have on their reputation. It has reached a breaking point with Katie, but she is at a loss as to how to intervene and correct this situation, particularly since Hal is her "equal" business partner.

Analysis

There are actually several possible avenues available and/or necessary to deal with Hal. Before we explore them, however, let's go to the Behavioral Change Map again (Figure 2.2), and see where it takes us.

Figure 2.2

Although the flowchart tends to direct us to the conclusion that Hal's motivation is the issue, let's not be hasty. There is the possibility that he may lack some skills, so this case poses a caveat.

If Hal has never been diplomatic or politically correct, how do we know he can be? So, the first line of attack may be to convince him to take some type of interpersonal relations training (Dale Carnegie, et al.) and see if it sticks. That's one approach. But, knowing Hal, he may not be receptive to self-improvement, because, in his mind, it's everyone else who needs to change.

So, if that does not work, Katie may have to have a woman-to-man reality talk with Hal, to see if there might be a better place to use his skills to help grow the company, such as a more technical arena. But, since Hal may not be receptive to hearing this from Katie, an even better approach might be to solicit input from a board of directors, a small business advisory service, SCORE (Service Corps of Retired Executives), or some other non-biased, third-party business growth consultant or organization.

Regardless of who it is, they will tell them that one of the first rules of a successful business partnership is for the partners to have non-redundant skill sets. This is particularly necessary when you are lean staffed, because you do not have the luxury of allowing two people to do the same thing at the same time (i.e., double team sales calls), unless each brings enough of a unique value to the table. That is not the case here. Hal adds nothing to the situation. Just don't tell him that.

Finally, if Hal does not respond to interpersonal effectiveness training (i.e., it is not a skill issue), and Katie and the consultants cannot "motivate" him to bow out of the sales side of the business, perhaps a trial period of Katie and Hal going on separate sales calls (use productivity as an ego-saving ploy) for a period of time to see who has the best success might convince Hal of the virtues of change. After all, as a co-founder, Hal has to be motivated by business growth, so if he can see that his own wallet will be fatter if he applies himself where he is most valuable, the proof will be in the pudding!

This may be a good time to look at the "AIM" Venn Diagram in Chapter 4, because if you drill down as to why Hal may be so flippant about sales, it may be because deep down he knows he is not very good at it or just doesn't like it. But with his ego and defensiveness, it is easier to just discount it to save face. Few of us love to do something that we cannot do well, particularly on a regular basis. It is particularly troubling if Hal has neither the Ability nor the Interest.

Bottom line: You will be doing Hal a favor by finding a graceful way for him to bow out of the sales call process. Tap his real abilities and interests such as analyses, written proposals, projections, cost-benefit analyses, etc., and find a way to weave that into an asset to the sales process so he still feels like a contributor, his ego is protected, and both of you can be successful.

If all of these approaches fail, Katie should just buy him out!

If You Want the Job Done Right!

Rodney was a creative genius, a budding inventor, and an entrepreneur. He spent several years on his own, on a product that he developed and had patented, and that appeared to hold the promise of fame and fortune. He also spent those years as a loner, by choice. In spite of several highly successful businessmen's offers of support, both financial and professional, Rodney just couldn't share his baby with anyone. He not only feared that someone might steal his secret, but also believed that no one could do things as well as he. He was wrong.

After years of financial ruin, he never really gave up on his invention. That could never happen. But reality finally required that he go back to work for a company. And Rodney found what appeared to be the perfect compromise: a technology development company that prided itself on repeated successful new product introductions to the market. Innovation, capital, and implementation all under one roof!

Being highly self-motivated, Rodney did quite well at first, working diligently on a promising new proprietary chemical compound. He not only met his new employer's deadlines and budget, but did so with aplomb. So what's the problem? The problem is that Rodney refused to let anyone else in the innovation chain of command participate in any of it, including the later stages of development—prototypes, packaging, market research, etc. It didn't matter that he had no proven expertise or even any accountability for these responsibilities.

Rodney's "close to the vest" mentality that sank him as an entrepreneur was haunting him still. Once again, he was trapped in the mindset that no one but he was as qualified or capable of taking a project from beginning to end. But this time, it wasn't his call.

But how does an employer capitalize on Rodney's innovative brilliance without driving him away? How do we keep control of the process without losing Rodney in the process?

Analysis

Since Rodney is already on the payroll, and you already know he has value, we need to find a way to tap his talent without stifling his motivation. The first and most effective way (see Behavioral Change Map in Chapter 4) is to manage the consequences; in this case, money (compensation, bonuses, and incentives)!

It may be too late to restructure his base salary (i.e., to reduce it), so we need to find a way to dangle a win-win carrot in front of him, something that we can afford if he meets the objectives, such as a bonus for getting the new product to market by a certain date, or cooperating with certain other key members of the team, based on feedback reports and tangible, indisputable measures. This way, he will have no choice but to "let go" and to learn that he is not the only one with a brain and valuable talent.

Simultaneous to this strategy, you should put Rodney through a psychological assessment process. Let's call it personal development. It's less threatening. You will learn what you already know, that he is a creative, not an implementer, but he needs to learn it too! He also needs to learn how others can actually help him succeed. Right now, Rodney would rather fail than admit that he cannot do it all.

Ideally, this issue should have been nipped in the bud, at the point of hire. Not only because it is common for creative and innovative geniuses to also be prima donnas, but also because there are ways to predict and even prevent these behaviors, through psychological testing and profiling. Granted, it may not change Rodney (or anyone like him), but it does afford a reality check up front as to what to expect, and allows you to structure the job and its compensation (consequences) to drive the appropriate behaviors.

For example, some people are creative thinkers like Rodney, while others' strengths may lie in the area of development or advancement of an idea, taking an idea and turning the concept into a reality, while others are implementers, taking it to the market and selling it, and so forth. Very, very few people, even geniuses, can excel at all of these functions (see AIM, Chapter 4) because they may lack either the ability or the interest to some degree, thus making someone else more qualified.

Once your team recognizes this reality, they can then see the value, both to them and to the organization, of how a true innovation team can and should be formed. With proper assessment and placement, you can create a truly whole-brained team in which no one feels threatened, but all feel enlightened.

Al Naturale

All in favor of diversity, say Aye! All in favor of tolerance, say Aye! All in favor of body odor, say...

Yes, Technerd Industries, Inc. was a company that exemplified the concept of diversity and tolerance. They hired engineers, scientists, and every other skilled trade from around the globe. They even facilitated and subsidized immigrants' efforts at gaining citizenship in order to stay in the U.S. and work for their company. They valued talent, period! Bring us your huddled masses! And it worked. They hired the best and the brightest, and had fewer recruitment challenges than most of their competitors. When you worked at Technerd, you knew that diversity and tolerance of others were the hallmarks of their culture.

But, there was a limit, at least in the eyes (and noses) of the "sweet smelling" camp. It was just expected that everyone would come to work in the morning smelling fresh or not smelling at all. But, it became common knowledge that a detour was necessary when traveling the halls and cubicles of Technerd if you did not want to experience the sensory sensation of Mr. Al Naturale. Bottom line: He had extreme body odor, and no amount of incense or air freshener could cover it up. That would be like trying to spray perfume on a piece of poop.

Finally, a group of standard-smelling serfs stormed the Human Resources office to file a formal complaint. They made it clear that it was not only offensive, but also a deterrent to their productivity and morale. One comment made was, "What ever happened to majority rule? Al is in a distinct minority, and not only in the legal sense of the word. Something has to be done!"

What would you do?

Analysis (Part 1)

Every organization should seek diversity. Diversity means different points of view, and different points of view mean more ideas and greater potential for creativity. But diversity has limits. Those limits include not having to put up with someone's body odor, which makes it difficult to concentrate and work effectively.

Just as an employer has the right to set minimum typing speeds for typists, it has the right to decide whether its workplace is smoke-free or odor-free. Here Al's co-workers found it difficult to maintain productivity and morale. Why? He smells bad! This has nothing to do with disliking how someone "different" looks or acts. Al's smells weren't just different. They were offensive, and Technerd has a right to have him shape up or ship out.

Having to tell an employee that his body odor offends others is not a pleasant task, but ignoring the problem is only going to create more problems down the road with his co-workers. Before meeting with Al, it would be prudent to investigate the allegations, assuming you have never been downwind of him yet, to confirm that the complaints are legitimate.

Upon confirmation of the stench, schedule a private meeting with Al to address the issue. Be sensitive, but direct. Treat it as you would any other job-related issue, because it is. If the opportunity presents itself, suggest measures for correcting the problem, like bathing daily and wearing deodorant.

One caution, however: Do not suggest possible medical causes for body odor because doing so could lead to implications related to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If Al volunteers such information, i.e., that the condition is medically related, ask for a physician's certification to determine if, in fact, he does have an ADA-protected disability. If so, then you must determine if a reasonable accommodation is feasible. For more information on ways to accommodate employees with medically related body odor, see the web site of the Job Accommodation Network, a service of the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Disability Employment Policy at www.jan.wvu.edu. The page on body odor is at www.jan.wvu.edu/soar/other/bodyodor.html.

Al Naturale (Part 2)

Upon counseling Al, his supervisor discovered that Al's culture and religion do not believe in the use of perfumes or other artificial substances on their bodies. Is Al's right to smell protected by law, as a religious freedom or right to free expression?

Analysis (Part 2)

It may sound un-American, but legally speaking, if Al works for a private employer, he has no right to freedom of expression in the workplace. Private means not part of the federal, state, or local government system. Federal and state constitutions protect folks from government abuse. Al has no constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech or expression, subject to protection from a private employer.

But claiming religious preference and religious discrimination makes the situation more interesting. Hasidic Jews, as an example, are an extremely orthodox branch of the Jewish faith. As a matter of religion, they use no soaps or perfumes. On a hot summer day in a New York subway, dressed in dark, heavy clothing, they can get a bit "ripe." But they can do that, free of discrimination, because the transit system ordinarily is owned or authorized by a local government, and travelers have constitutional rights to freedom of religion and expression.

But a private employer like Technerd is different. It probably is subject to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, state, and local laws which forbid religious discrimination. Put another way, Technerd cannot treat people adversely because of their religion and must reasonably accommodate people's religious convictions.

But what if an employer has a job-related reason for something that unintentionally impacts a person's religious convictions adversely, or someone's religious observance causes hardship to the employer? The law permits such "discrimination." In Al's case the hardship to Technerd's business is evident. His smells make it difficult for employees to concentrate at work. If Technerd cannot force or persuade Al to eliminate or control his odor, employees will not be able to work effectively and otherwise efficiently. That would hurt the business, and that permits Technerd, within reason, to clamp down on Al and his smells.

But what if Al works alone in his own office and a ventilating system could make virtually all of his smells disappear? What if Al works strictly on a computer with no human contact, customer or employee? In either situation, and if Al's smells are driven by religious belief, the employer may not suffer a sufficient hardship to "de-skunk" him. In that situation, or in a disability case (Al may smell because he has some disease), Technerd should engage in a dialogue with him to learn about his smells, their root, the detrimental effect they are having on the business, and balancing odor and business.

Why? To explore and hopefully find a way to eliminate or drastically reduce the problem with the least effort, cost, and infringement on Al. If Technerd does this, it is on a far firmer legal footing, regardless of its final decision.

Chatty Cathy

Cathy is an accomplished creative writer. She works in a cubicle. So do her neighboring co-workers. Unfortunately for them, Cathy's way of processing concepts is to think out loud. She talks to herself, all day, almost all the time. Whether it's just a nervous habit, or her way of thinking and problem solving, no one really cares. All they know is that it is annoying and distracting.

After a while, her co-workers started to listen more closely to see if they could eavesdrop on her self-talk and see if they could get her into trouble for something. However, all they could hear was her talking her way through various projects, brainstorming alternative creative commercials, rehearsing her next phone conversation, and other non-descript but job-related banter.

But that didn't make it any less irritating. The troops managed to get their collective bowels into an uproar, and eventually Nellie, who works in one of the adjacent cubicles, was nominated to go to her boss to see if he could put a muzzle on Cathy. She claimed that it was an infringement on their personal peace and space, and that it was just weird, and that she and her fellow eavesdroppers were sick of it.

Should Cathy be muzzled?

Analysis

This has to be a common phenomenon in today's open office environments. But why should Cathy's self-talk be any more distracting than if she were on the phone all day? The bottom line is that Cathy's co-workers are bothered more by her weirdness than by her talking. Unless Cathy is screaming, or spewing obscenities, or truly creating a hostile work environment, it's no one's business that she has a weird habit of talking to herself. Not to mention the fact that she has a successful track record of idea development, thoroughness, and other performance indices that prove that her method works for her.

There is a solution, however, for anyone working in such an environment. It's called white noise. Many companies, unbeknownst to anyone, pipe in a constant shhhhhhh sound that is amazingly effective at canceling out or covering up conversation. It is more for privacy purposes than anything else, but it does work. In fact, in my early days in labor relations, and before the technology of white noise existed, we would caucus in the bathroom of our hotel room next to a running shower in case the room was bugged. Low-tech white noise! Same principle.

Assuming Cathy's company does not want to invest in white noise, Nellie and her nosy friends can buy their own personal noise cancellation headsets, which do the same thing, but even better. They aren't for playing music, unless you want them to, but they do cancel out extraneous noise. Some people use them on airplanes so they can sleep while their noisy fellow passengers hoot and holler.

There are plenty of personal solutions that Nellie and friends can pursue such as mini-waterfalls, low music, etc. without having to embarrass or inconvenience Cathy, who is harming no one. Otherwise, tell Nellie and her friends to pay more attention to what's going on inside their own cubicles and maybe they won't be so easily distracted.

Walking Art

Art is a Gen "Y" individualist whose hobby is to "personalize" his body. He has a bolt through his nose, a stud in his tongue, rings through his eyebrows and tattoos in all the right (or wrong) places. Art thinks of himself as, well...exactly that... living, walking "art."

The problem is that Art is a front line service worker in an assisted living facility for senior citizens, and his appearance scares the bejeepers out of these poor folks. One man almost had a heart attack when Art walked into his room one night to clean his bathroom. Residents walk on the opposite sides of the hallways when Art approaches. It has become a recurring topic of conversation in the dining room, and elsewhere in the community among the residents.

Art claims that his "body art" falls into his right to personal freedom of expression, and that he has a lifestyle outside of work that respects and even admires his sense of style, and that people just need to lighten up, be more open minded, and get used to the "diversity" of today's generation. After all, we always talk about tolerance and acceptance of diversity, so why should he be "discriminated" against? Shouldn't people just learn to adapt?

Analysis

NOPE! Self-inflicted diversity is not a protected class. Art wasn't born with a bolt in his nose, or a naked lady on his forearm, so just give up on the diversity angle. Art can express himself as painfully as he wishes when he is off the clock, but given the nature of the customer and the business, it is no different than requiring the wearing of hair nets in the kitchen.

After all, some organizations legitimately and legally prohibit beards for those who may have to wear respirators in an emergency. Other companies prohibit the use of foul language to prevent creating a hostile work environment for others. Art can express himself somewhere else.

A reasonable solution may be to have Art remove his hardware and to cover up his tattoos with long sleeves and pants to whatever extent is possible while on duty. He is not impressing senior citizens with his personal expression, and he is not being denied his so-called right to express himself in the outside world.

Ultimately, if he cannot put a lid on his self-expression, your decision becomes one of placement elsewhere, like in the kitchen or some other less visible position, if he is worth keeping at all. It is job-related, period!

Somebody's Got to Do It!

Hardcore Software, Inc. is a leader in servicing a multitude of clients in the X-rated, adult e-commerce and web-based entertainment industry with everything from web design, merchant account processing systems, video streaming, and even content development. In other words, they serve the purveyors of Internet porn.

In the process of providing these services, it is an inescapable reality that employees are subjected to graphic sexual images and activities, and, as in any service-related company, they are also expected to have positive interactions and to even schmooze with client representatives on occasion.

Mary, a junior staff member, has been with HSI for six months, and has managed to avoid all contact with clients. She conveniently makes herself unavailable for company/client activities such as trade shows, sales meetings, socials, and other gatherings, by always having a "personal" excuse like a family emergency, doctor's appointment, spontaneous vacation plans, personal business, etc.

Her opinion of the clients and the industry are well known, as she continually makes pejorative comments to her co-workers about them both, with utter disgust. But the job pays well, it meets her needs geographically, and offers her the flexible work schedule she needs. So, she has decided to tolerate the "other" issues.

Mary's savvy at being invisible around the client and at never being available for other business development activities has started to rub her co-workers the wrong way. It has also come to a head with her supervisor, who feels these roles are a necessary and required part of the job.

Upon meeting with Mary about these issues, Mary said that she was hired to do a specific job, and that she does that job well. To participate in these extra-curricular activities with people she considers lewd and lascivious goes against her values and her religious upbringing and that if she is forced to do so, she will file a charge of sexual harassment by reason of hostile work environment.¹

Analysis

If, in fact, networking and schmoozing are an integral part of Mary's job, this issue can be dealt with as purely a performance issue, which is the preferable route for Hardcore Software. Ideally, this would have been part of her original job description and even part of any new employee's orientation program.

An effective new employee orientation program should be about more than just how to fill out benefit forms or where the restrooms and cafeteria are located. Orientation programs should be used to instill values: specifically, company values. And the values of a company like HSI are not hard to understand. Difficult to respect, maybe, but not hard to understand.

But long before an employee is hired, at any company, but especially one like HSI, it is critical that employment candidates be given something called a "Realistic Job Preview," or RJP. Too many companies see recruitment as more of a sales pitch and only tell them the good stuff, rather than as an opportunity and an obligation to have both parties assess whether they will be a fit for each other.

An RJP gives candidates the good stuff, but also makes sure they are aware of the potential downsides of working at a particular company. Whether it is extensive travel, difficult customers, odd hours, challenging conditions, or whatever, it does neither party any good to hide the bad and the ugly parts of working there only to have them revealed after they are hired. For Hardcore Software Inc., it is particularly important to be sure that candidates understand the nature of their clientele, their products, services, and expectations.

In extreme cases, some employers have even been granted a special exception, called a BFOQ (bona fide occupational qualification), which actually allows them to discriminate on otherwise illegal bases and exempts them from potential employment discrimination claims.

For example, a man might not be able to sue a lingerie catalogue for refusing to hire him as a model, even though it was obviously based upon his sex. Their customers do not want to see a guy's marble bag wrapped in silk. Or, a black cosmetics company might discriminate against a Caucasian to demonstrate their line of products, even though it is clearly discrimination on the basis on race.

Additionally, there have been cases (Ocheltree v. Scollon Productions, Inc., 4th Cir., No. 01-1648) in which the courts have ruled against a female employee who complained of offensive sexual conduct and language by male co-workers, holding that sexually explicit jokes and language directed at and offensive to both genders cannot constitute discrimination because of sex. An employee is discriminated against "because of sex" only if the conduct would not have occurred but for the employee's gender, the court held.

Although anyone can sue anyone for anything in this country, unless there was some targeted activity toward Mary causing her emotional distress of a sexual nature, she would be hard pressed to be able to make a claim of hostile work environment. And, to reaffirm, if the nature of her job requires socializing and interacting with clients, HSI would be perfectly in its rights to counsel her based upon not meeting the performance expectations of the job.

What's It to Ya?

Cliques are nothing new. They form at school; they form at work; they even form at church. But one clique in particular seems to trouble everyone who isn't in it. Every day at lunchtime, Stan and a handful of employees gather at one table and pretty much shun everyone else. They seem to always be planning something together for evenings, weekends, etc. And they seem to have a real attitude about it.

So what? Others are on bowling leagues together; they go to sporting events, picnics, and all sorts of other "group" activities. Why so much fuss about this clique? Just because they are all white men with shaved heads, risqué tattoos, muscle shirts with swastikas, and narrow views on the roles of minorities and other protected classes in society?

Exactly! They were Ku Klux Klan, white supremacist skinheads! Now what?

Analysis

The employer here is almost certainly subject to federal, state, and/or local laws forbidding workplace discrimination, including, in particular, prohibiting racial, national origin, and religious workplace discrimination. That means that an employer has a duty to keep its workplace free of discrimination by everyone, not just its supervisors, but also its employees, vendors, and customers.

It is illegal and also unwise (and loony!) for an employer subject to these laws to allow an organization like this one to advocate white supremacy at the workplace. Our "equal employment" employer therefore needs to clamp down on this clique, by written policy and warnings of discharge. In no uncertain terms, our EEO employer has to make absolutely clear to this klan that it has no right, in the workplace, to act upon or even voice any deep-seated feelings that run contrary to our equal employment laws. If they want to stay employed!

To the extent any of these supremacist skinheads manifest anti-race, anti-national origin, or anti-religious actions or words ever again, we can say "sayonara" to them, once and for all. Saying goodbye in Japanese would be an ironic send-off to let everyone and anyone know that diversity is good and for them to make themselves "diverse" by leaving the workplace, never to return.

But what of their freedom of association, expression, or speech? As mentioned earlier (see Al Naturale), there are no such animals if our equal opportunity employer is a private (i.e., non-government) company. But even if it is a public employer, employees making up the KKK clique have no unlimited right of association, expression, or speech, where it will or can cause dissension, confusion, or outright violence in the workplace. That is the reason why no one, for instance, has a right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theatre because the ensuing panic could kill or injure people.

Abused and Confused

Suzie was the receptionist at a major financial services firm. She greeted folks as they came into the main office, managed the switchboard, and did some filing and typing in between. Her attendance was good, her skills were fine and she was well liked by everyone. But apparently things weren't going so well for Suzie at home. She would come to work wearing long sleeves in the middle of summer, heavier make-up than usual, and even tinted glasses on occasion. She was even heard crying in the ladies room when she thought no one was around.

Eventually the grapevine was quite fertilized, and there was no avoiding the issue any longer. It was obvious, even to customers and other outsiders who came to visit, that Suzie was being abused by someone. So, her supervisor asked Human Resources for assistance. What could they do to help Suzie without prying into her personal life? Do they have a right to talk with her about it? Her job performance continues to be fine, but it is causing tension and distraction among employees and particularly with customers, vendors, and others with whom the firm does business.

Analysis

Let's go back to the Behavioral Change Map one more time (Figure 2.3).

Figure 2.3

In this case, we don't need to waste a lot of time defining the problem or doing a cost/benefit analysis or even belaboring whether this is worth doing something about. One's life and limb may be at stake here, not to mention the negative impact this has on customers, clients, and co-workers.

And believe it or not, many individuals in this situation are completely blinded by it, and cannot even see any options for dealing with it, so it's certainly not a motivation issue. So, if it's a skill issue, the next question is, "Can you make it easier for her to do?" And the answer is "Yes."

Analysis (Part 1)

Human Resources suggested referring Suzie to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP), a confidential, third party provider of counseling and referral services, and tried to avoid getting into the specifics of her personal life. They decided that it would be okay to let her know that they were concerned about her well-being, but they could not force her into counseling or to seek legal counsel.

There was no denying that she was coming to work bruised and battered, so whether she wants to admit to the cause or not is up to her. From a human resources perspective, since her job skills were not lacking, and her attendance was not suffering, there was no basis for "performance counseling." So Human Resources, along with her immediate supervisor, agreed to sit down with Suzie and make her aware of the obvious, and to suggest she contact the Employee Assistance Program provider.

Abused and Confused (Part 2)

When Suzie's supervisor and HR sat down with her to make her aware of the EAP, she just clammed up. She refused to acknowledge that there was any problem at all, and even suggested that her bruises were due to a fall and then from some extra-curricular sports activities. When confronted about her crying in the ladies room, she said that she has always had mood swings, that maybe it's some hormonal thing.

It was obvious that Suzie was in total denial and was probably afraid to reveal the true nature of her situation and cause of her injuries. HR and her supervisor were also in no position to insist upon any further action at this time.

As might be expected, Suzie's situation did not improve. In fact, things only got worse. It got so bad that her supervisor actually pulled her off the job one morning when she was obviously injured to tell her that she had to deal with whatever the issue is because it was beginning to detract from her effectiveness on the job, with her co-workers and with the public. In this regard, and to this degree, it is job-related and not just personal any more.

She finally confessed that her boyfriend was the jealous, possessive type and that he was always accusing her of all kinds of suspicious activity, and that no matter what she said or did it always ended the same way. She would deny it but then he would call her a liar, blow up, and then beat her up. She said that he would always apologize later and promise that it would never happen again, but eventually it always did.

To complicate matters even further, she was now in fear for her life. She said that she could not go to the Employee Assistance Program because her boyfriend would never permit her "airing their dirty laundry" and that this would make him look bad, and only make matters even worse for her and her daughter. He made it quite clear that if she ever breathed a word of their domestic situation to anyone that she and her daughter would regret it, so she is between a rock and a hard place.

Analysis (Part 2)

Now that Suzie has confirmed her situation with her employer, they and/or the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) personnel are in a position to give her appropriate counsel. Ideally, it should come from the EAP to keep it confidential, and because that is what they are paid and trained to do.

Although it may not happen, the logical next step is to get Suzie to separate herself from this guy, and to get a restraining order against him. Each year, over a million employees become victims of violent crime at work, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. When violence from domestic partners threatens to spill over into the workplace, employers should use every tool available to protect themselves and their employees. It's no longer personal; it's their business!

One of these tools is a court restraining order barring an aggressor from the workplace. Although we see them violated time and time again in the news, restraining orders are still one of the only legal and necessary tools available in the fight against abuse, whether at home or at work.

Restraining orders are creatures of state law, and as such, vary widely from one state to another on a variety of issues. Therefore, it is best to seek specific advice from an expert in employment law in your state. And, once again, this should be something that your EAP should be able to orchestrate.

As a final note, the employer may want to take other general actions to protect themselves and their workers on an ongoing basis, not just for this type of situation, but to adapt to the unfortunate nature of today's society. Such measures might include installing surveillance cameras in public places, controlling workplace access, making sure all employees are aware of their EAP and how to use it, posting and/or distributing domestic violence and rape hotline numbers, etc. Education can be one of the best forms of prevention and correction.

Got Milk?

Lacy is a new mother. She returned to work as soon as her medical leave for pregnancy expired. Although she is not a "stay-at-home" mother advocate, she is a devotee of breast-feeding. Dilemma? How can she nurse her baby, when her breasts are at work, and her baby is across town at the day care center? Simple! Use a breast pump at work to stockpile her milk to deliver to the day care center the next day.

Sounds simple enough, but Lacy's need (desire?) to lactate didn't always coincide with her scheduled break times or lunch time. So, she just whipped those puppies out and pumped her product whenever and wherever the mood (or pressure) hit her. Yuck! Excuse me, but I'm a guy, and I don't even want to look at that at work!

When people treated her behavior like a car wreck (looking, but not looking), and some even sighed in disgust or left the area, Lacy's militant motherness was also exposed, along with her breasts. She would, in no uncertain terms, cast dispersions upon those who could be so insensitive toward a mother's desire to breast-feed, or who were turned off by such a beautiful and natural event of nature.

Again, excuse me, but there are plenty of "acts of nature" that we all experience, many of which are intended to be out of range of others' senses and sensibilities. (Does the bathroom come to mind here?) So what is an employer to do? Does Lacy's need translate into a right?

Analysis

No! OK, next question? All right, so it may not be so simple and straightforward as that. Otherwise, why put it in the book, right? Actually it depends on the state. As of this writing, laws in California (surprise?), Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, and Tennessee require employers to provide an appropriate workplace location—other than a restroom—where nursing mothers can "express" milk. Other states, like Texas and Washington, have programs designed to encourage employers to be "infant-friendly."

Otherwise, it's a business judgment call. Except where proscribed by law, there is no reason why an employer cannot counsel an employee like Lacy to be more discreet about when and where she lactates. Granted, you may want to be a little more flexible about enforcing scheduled break times, but you do not have to provide more off-duty time for a nursing mother any more than you do for people who have to step outside to have a nicotine fix. It's not the "when" that is as business driven as the "how much" or the "where."

For the latest state laws covering this subject, go to www.lalecheleague.org/LawBills.html. The La Leche League is obviously pro-breast-feeding, and even cites evidence that working mothers who breast-feed have lower absenteeism rates than those who bottle-feed their babies. Go figure.

Quid Pro Quo Pro (AKA Tit for Tat)

As was defined in "Somebody's Got To Do It!" there are two forms of sexual harassment (see footnote on page 50). That particular case had to do with hostile environment. This one has to do with quid pro quo, but with a twist, of course!

Loretta was Executive Vice President of Clean & Pure, the largest division of a high-end cosmetics corporation. There were quite a few female executives in this company who had worked their way up the ladder the old fashioned way—through hard work—and managed to break through the glass ceiling. This was one company that recognized and rewarded performance, regardless of sex.

Lou started out as a sales representative in the field, calling on department store buyers. He reported to Jim, a Regional Sales Manager. Ultimately, Jim reported to Loretta, but there were several layers of management between them.

Loretta and Lou met at the company's annual sales conference in Las Vegas, and really hit it off. In fact, they hit it off in the elevator, in the lounge, and eventually in Loretta's executive suite. In the afterglow of the evening, they both realized what they had done (yeah, right!), and Lou said that he was sorry for the indiscretion and that it would end there.

Loretta had other ideas. She told Lou that she doesn't just hit and run, and that if he wasn't interested in continuing the tryst, that he truly did have poor judgment, and that she questioned his future potential at Clean & Pure. Lou was shocked, but decided that since he was in Las Vegas, he needed to know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. So, he called her hand!

"What's in it for me, Loretta? I have nothing to gain here but a roll in the hay. Not that it wasn't enjoyable, but you are threatening my future career if I don't sleep with you. So, what if I do?" said Lou.

"Lou, you know that Jim, your boss, is not going to be in that position forever. Just think about it. Who do you think has the final say about such promotions and transfers? You can have your cake and eat it too! Don't be stupid," said Loretta.

And so it went. Ordinarily this would be a clear case of quid pro quo, and a sexual discrimination charge would be pending. But not this time. Lou went for it, hook, line, and sinker. He became Regional Sales Manager within a year, then moved into Corporate Headquarters where he could really make his mark, both personally and professionally. And he did. Raises, promotions, cushy projects, and favored assignments came his way. Lou was the fat rich kid in the candy store.

The only problem was that everyone knew what was going on, including those who did not receive the promotions, assignments, and other "fringe benefits" of sleeping with the boss. Resentment turned to pent-up anger because it seemed futile to do or say anything about it. After all, Loretta's character is pretty well established by now, so it's doubtful she would just suddenly "see the light" and repent! What to do! What to do!

Analysis

Well, the first question is "who cares?" Not to imply that this isn't totally inappropriate, unfair, and a gross abuse of power, but seriously, what action is taken next depends literally on who cares. In other words, is it Lou's former peers, or is it Loretta's boss? Position power does matter in how a case like this is initiated. Let's face it: neither Loretta nor Lou are going to initiate it!

Assuming it is someone above Loretta (on the organizational chart, that is) who is concerned, a rather standard internal investigation could be initiated in which the parties are interviewed separately, corroboration is sought, evidence is obtained, and ultimatums are presented. Pretty clear cut. Well, as clear cut as a sexual harassment investigation can be, that is. Any employment lawyer or consultant worth his or her salt can walk them through that one.

But, what if the higher ups have no clue, or are in denial? And what if the complaints are coming from those whom Lou slept over (instead of stepped over) on his way to the top? Well, as you are probably starting to realize by now, there are multiple possibilities and scenarios.

The worst-case scenario would be a complaint being lodged by someone who felt he or she was denied a promotion or other employment opportunity due substantially to the quid pro quo relationship between Lou and Loretta. First, one must demonstrate that 1) an opportunity existed in which the aggrieved party was eligible and qualified, 2) that Lou was awarded the opportunity, and 3) that he was awarded the opportunity due to the quid pro quo relationship. That's called a prima facie case.

Long before it gets to the point of litigation, however, it is critical that the employer have a clearly communicated process for complaints such as this to be filed and given due process, and that a full, impartial, confidential investigation be conducted promptly. Ideally, this process should be spearheaded by someone in a human resources or legal capacity to better ensure objectivity and confidentiality. Again, evidence is collected and the parties are interviewed.

Whether Lou and/or Loretta admit to their sins or not is a consideration, but if the evidence clearly indicates that the case has merit, the liability for the employer is the same. This type of case could be resolved internally, or may require litigation, depending upon 1) the actions taken to punish the offenders and 2) the acceptance of the terms by the aggrieved party or parties.

Sanctions could run anywhere from a serious warning with orders to cease and desist from future trysts and special favors, all the way to termination and corrective action. It is at this point that legal counsel should determine the proper intervention based upon the specifics and seriousness of the case.

If, in fact, the worst-case scenario is true, then the employer might be justified in terminating the employment of both Lou and Loretta. Loretta's role and culpability as victimizer and power abuser is clear. But even though Lou may appear to have been a victim of Loretta, he continued to use the situation to his personal gain and could have disclosed the impropriety of Loretta's quid pro quo actions through the same due process as his colleagues did to ultimately bring it to the attention of the company.

In any event, the message must be clear that such behavior will not be tolerated and that the company's sexual harassment policies and procedures are effective at both weeding out and dealing with such situations.

When Perception Ain't Reality

It is said that perception is reality. In other words, if you believe something is true, you will behave as if it is. This is true! But when it causes upheaval and expense, and the perception is based on a falsehood, it may be time for a reality check.

Lizzie was working as an assembly-line worker in a manufacturing plant, when Marcus, a co-worker next to her, cut his hand, resulting in some of his blood spattering onto her hand. Unfortunately, Lizzie was of the opinion that Marcus was gay, based upon his mannerisms, his circle of friends, etc. As a result, she panicked, made a great scene, and appropriately washed the blood off and found the first-aid kit and applied antiseptic immediately.

But it didn't end there. In addition to creating a scene on the job, she insisted that the company pay for an HIV test for her, which they did. It came back negative. But that wasn't good enough for Lizzie. She just couldn't get it out of her head that she was in great danger of contracting AIDS, and even though subsequent tests continued to confirm that she was HIV-negative, she was just too traumatized to work. Not surprisingly, Lizzie found a doctor to diagnose her with post-traumatic stress disorder, which she used as a basis to apply for Workers' Compensation. Should she be entitled to it?

Analysis

Ordinarily, this could be a jump ball, dependent upon the jurisdiction in which the worker applied for his or her workers' compensation, the mood and politics of the hearing officer, or any of a number of other uncontrollable variables in the world of government benefits.

In fact, Lizzie was actually awarded benefits, based upon her medical diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. However, the company appealed the decision, which went all the way to a state level Supreme Court, which reversed the decision to award benefits because her claim was based upon a "fear" of exposure as opposed to "actual" exposure through a medically recognized means of transmission.

The learning point here is that employers, particularly those where bodily fluids may be involved (healthcare, etc.), should educate their employees about the known ways in which HIV and any other diseases may (or may not) be transmitted. Education is the best way to prevent unfounded fears based upon rumor, innuendo, or other misguided assumptions.

Additionally, there are regulations promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) that include detailed guidelines related to blood-borne pathogens which were created to minimize the potential for transmission of HIV and other blood-borne diseases. Adherence to these guidelines will reduce employees' fears and ability to claim "actual" exposure.

Ticks & Twitches

Terry is a rather introverted but very effective employee, and whenever he gets in a group setting, he seems to get nervous and starts making weird faces and noises. His co-workers have come to expect it, and even have a good laugh about it behind his back. He has a number of body ticks and twitches that seem to be out of his control.

Whether Terry is aware of how he looks and sounds is anyone's guess, but it is becoming more of an issue now that he has to meet with clients. He is the only one who really understands the intricacies of their technology and who can translate it in such a way that clients can see the value of expanding its applications. He is a rare talent, but also a strange bird.

The last time they were meeting with a client in the conference room, Terry got one of his looks of constipation and consternation, and the client thought he was mad about something. Red faces abounded, and what used to be just an inside joke was becoming an embarrassment. How can we solve this problem without destroying Terry's self-esteem and particularly without losing the value of his knowledge and expertise? If his weird behavior is triggered by stress, telling him about it might just stress him out even more!

Analysis

As you become more and more familiar with the Behavioral Change Map in Chapter 4, you will come to the conclusion that this must be a skill issue. In other words, it is hard to believe that if Terry knew how he looked, and what effect it was having on his potential success, he certainly would not be lacking in motivation to change. So now he needs to learn how.

But how do we tell him? Every professional should always be in some form of a targeted personal or professional development plan. And since Terry is now in a position of meeting with clients, it stands to reason that he might benefit from some interpersonal effectiveness training. We don't need to introduce this with the premise that he looks and acts weird in public. That would only be destructive and put him on the defensive.

Here are a couple of options. You could enroll him in a training program that includes role- playing and videotaping. I don't care how effective you think you are, when you see yourself on video for the first time, it ain't pretty. If this was done by an outside seminar or consulting company, no one would be privy to it but Terry and his trainer.

Another solution is to hire a personal performance coach. This is becoming more and more common for executives who really don't get enough candid and focused feedback. Whether it's for presentation skills, self-awareness, or some other form of development, having a personal coach is like talking to your shrink or your priest. Candor, compassion, and confidentiality can accomplish miracles.

In the meantime, counsel Terry's co-workers on being less cruel and heartless. Maybe they could use a little video taping as well!

Public Affairs

OK, we've been through both forms of sexual harassment now ("Somebody's Got To Do It!" and "Quid Pro Quo Pro"), but what about the inter-office affair that is neither a hostile environment nor quid pro quo? It's just an affair!

Hank and Hanna hooked up at an annual offsite staff meeting in Florida, along with a bunch of other staffers, to learn about a new project, hear a "state of the company" address, and to wine and dine on the company expense report. Nothing wrong with a little R&R, huh?

One evening, after everyone had gorged their gullets with booze and brie in a beachside restaurant, it was just too nice a night to resist taking a stroll (stagger) on the beach. For the most part, it was just that, a lot of laughing, a little kidding, and some kicking in the sand. However, as the crowd started to disperse, and people headed back to their rooms, or out to another bar, Hank and Hanna had developed a sort of magnetism. That magnet seemed to be attached to their bellies, because it wasn't long before the sand crabs were seeing some action.

So, what's the problem? Hank and Hanna do not report to each other. They don't even work in the same department! Well, it may have passed unnoticed, had they not decided to continue the action back at work. It never ended.

They would meet before work, God knows where, and walk in looking like the cat that just ate the bird, thinking they were being discreet. They would disappear together at lunch. They would find opportunities to "team build" wherever and whenever possible, but never on company time, nor on company property. So, what's the problem here?

Well, aside from the fact that they are both married, but not to each other, they are also employed by Christian Ministries Foundation, an organization that has clear standards for behavior, clear definitions of right and wrong, and a mission to bring sinners to their knees around the world.

Now what? Is it an employer's right, or even obligation, to interfere with workers' personal lives if it is not infringing on company time or property? Can adultery be against company policy, or is that dictating behavior beyond the job requirements?

Analysis

As is the case in every one of the situations in this book, it is critical that you have the facts before proceeding full speed into the morass that awaits you. So, first be sure that Hank and Hanna are still married (to other people) and then be sure that they are not just really good friends who spend a lot of time together. I know. Some things are obvious. But it is critical to get all the facts first in situations as sensitive and volatile as these.

Let's first address the issue of office romances in general. Contrary to what one might assume, office romances are a lot more successful, and less dangerous, than you might think. And, they're also more serious. Recent research has revealed that more than half of all office romances end in long-term commitments or marriage (ref: Dennis Powers, professor at Southern Oregon University's School of Business). With about eight million Americans expected to get their meat where they get their bread each year, those are much better odds than the success rates of traditional dating relationships.

Now, let's be practical. Discretion is the key. Not that committing adultery discreetly is acceptable, but if you, as employer, decide to intervene into the personal matters of employees, including those that cross over into areas involving morals and values, then you may be opening a Pandora's box of potential problems for yourself and your organization.

Go back to the Behavioral Change Map, and ask yourself if their behavior is costing you anything. I know that sounds rather calloused and maybe even irresponsible, and may not be the point to you personally, but this is a business, not a family. It's not like you can have someone arrested for cheating. You may not like it, but that's reality.

However, once you have confirmed the facts of the relationship, there is nothing wrong with each person's supervisor, and/or the Human Resources officer (in fact, it is probably best to have both present) sitting down with the parties, separately, and reading them the riot act as to their lack of good judgment and discretion. This is fair and appropriate territory for you to pursue. Not the legitimacy of the relationship, but its impact on the organization vis a vis the hubbub and distraction created by their behavior.

Forget policies that prohibit co-workers from dating. They don't work. The only exception to that is when there is a direct reporting relationship or potential for fiduciary collusion, such as a bank manager dating a teller. But in most cases, it isn't worth trying to regulate relationships.

Besides, the corporate benefits of employees romancing one another may be greater than you think. Just ask Southwest Airlines! It has over 1,000 married couples dipping their pens in the company ink. Southwest not only permits such marriages, but even gives an annual "Love Award" recognizing the contribution that one special couple makes to the company. Another example of workplace weddings that work is at the offices of National Public Radio (NPR). Over the years, they have produced over 60 marriages between staffers.

Granted, the Hank and Hanna genre of fishing off the company pier is inappropriate at best, but it can be dealt with discreetly from the employer's end. The best advice is to lay it on the line regarding their lack of judgment and public persona, but then leave it alone unless it becomes a drain on the organization, or if it creates a conflict of interest.

Like it or not, your personal position and concern about the adultery issue is going to have to be put aside. In most cases, the spouse already knows, so it accomplishes nothing from a business or a legal perspective to threaten to spill the beans on the home front, or to prohibit their sticky wicket. It wouldn't accomplish anything but to create even more trauma and further fertilize an already ripe grapevine.²

Wanna Buy Some Cookies?

The sign on the main office door said "No Solicitation." It also said vendors and visitors must register with the receptionist. But does that apply to employees, too? Priscilla came in one morning with cases of her daughter's Girl Scout cookies, set them up in the coffee break room along with a sign soliciting co-workers to buy them, and a box to put their money in. No big deal?

Well, it wasn't long before she was walking the halls with order forms for Christmas cards, candy, candles and other holiday paraphernalia for sale for her kids' high school band trip fundraiser. It didn't end there! She was also an Amway and an Avon distributor! She didn't hard sell anyone, but the catalogues were clearly displayed in the reception lobby, the break room and several other high traffic areas with her name and phone number stamped on them. People ordered products; she delivered them to their workplace. How convenient!

Eventually, more and more people tried to avoid Priscilla like the plague. If they saw her coming toward them in the hall, they would ditch into the restroom, or make a sudden U-turn and hide wherever it was safe at the moment. There were a few "loyal" customers who bought a little of something most of the time, either because they were "guilted" into it, or they were high on the conflict-avoidance scale. Whatever the reason, they were easy prey for Priscilla the Pusher.

If you weren't a buyer of her goods, you were still fair game to be recruited into her multi-level marketing network. She was even known to follow people into the restroom to ask if they were interested in making money in their spare time. Priscilla's "spare" time just happened to be at work, i.e., at her real job.

Although no one specifically complained formally about Priscilla's ventures, it had become common knowledge and a common irritant to many. She didn't hide her activities, nor did she think there was anything wrong with "helping others" and "sharing opportunities." What do you think?

Analysis

You have two choices: (isn't that nice, for a change?)

1. Do nothing and just expect people to continue fending for themselves against Priscilla.
2. Counsel Priscilla about her "on-the-job" non-job-related activities and instruct her to cease and desist immediately.

This all boils down to a simple company policy decision. In option #1, you are admitting, by default, that solicitation is an acceptable practice on company time and property, and that it is an individual's choice whether to be receptive to it or not. One downside to this "non-strategy" is that more and more Priscillas and products may develop over time, competition may develop, and eventually a line in the sand will have to be drawn anyway. Not to mention that you may also be making it easier for a union-organizing campaign to take place since your past practice was to allow any type of solicitation. That's another whole book!

If option #2 is chosen, it will be necessary to make sure that Priscilla is not the only offender. This is an all-or-nothing proposition. And the best way to intervene fairly and effectively is to adopt a clear, strict and well-communicated policy regarding onsite solicitation. Either no one does it, or the door is open for anyone to do it.

You don't want to put yourself in a position of having to approve or disapprove every case individually. Degrees of abuse should not be the determining factor for intervention. In other words, you cannot say that one person can sell Christmas cookies once per year but someone else cannot sell everything from soup to nuts the rest of the year. This is a line that you just can't draw because it is an ever-moving and highly subjective target. Between all-or-nothing, nothing is clearly the easier and cleaner alternative.

Carpal Tunnel Crapola

Christine was a data entry clerk who spent significant periods of time at the keyboard entering customer information into the company computer. She was both fast and accurate in her keyboarding skills.

As time went on, she complained that the extended hours at the keyboard were causing her fingers and hands to cramp up. The company sought the counsel of a workplace ergonomic consultant, who recommended wrist rests, optimum workspace angles, and other preventative measures which the company adopted for everyone, not just Christine.

Christine, however, was accommodated even further. She was allowed to take extended breaks away from data entry to do other tasks that did not require similar, repetitive hand motion whenever she felt the pain coming on. She was on the honor system in this regard, and it didn't take long for her to be off the job more than on. Eventually, there just wasn't enough side work to accommodate her apparently impending disability.

Out of the blue, Christine appeared in the Human Resources department one morning with a letter from her doctor stating that she would have to take medical leave for an indefinite period of time to both rest and to rehabilitate her developing carpal tunnel syndrome. She then went to the local workers' compensation bureau and filed a claim for her workplace injury.

The company honored the doctor's recommendation; they put her on fully paid short term disability leave, with the requirement that her doctor report her progress on a bi-weekly basis. Days turned into weeks, weeks turned into months. And to make matters worse, it came to the company's attention that Christine was not only a master keyboardist, but she was also a prolific and profitable seamstress, needle-point and crochet artist. What was even more ironic was the way in which the company found out about her transferable dexterity skills.

As part of a new product promotion, the marketing department contracted with a local logo-wear company to design and produce golf shirts with the new product logo embroidered on them. Guess whom the logo-wear company sub-contracted with to do their logo stitching? Yep! Crafty Christine!

Essentially, they were paying Christine twice...once for not working her regular job and once for working an even more tedious job on the side! Work which, if she truly was developing carpal tunnel syndrome, would further aggravate the alleged injury that was exacerbated by her data entry work on the keyboard in the first place! This is truly a case of adding insult to injury! Now what?

Analysis

Chris "the Carp" and her doc told you one set of "facts." But you learned that those "facts" are untrue. To be kind, "the Carp" is operating contrary to her medical profile to obtain benefits (money) under false pretenses! That's lying and grounds for immediate discharge for dishonesty.

But be sure to verify her lying, so you can prove it if and when she claims a retaliatory firing. If she does, your answer is, "We fired her because she lied to us about the existence and severity of her medical condition to get time off and money from us under false pretenses."

Pretty straightforward, huh? If, however you lack the backbone or desire to fire her (maybe she is just so valuable?), and you don't mind having a liar and a fraud in your midst, you can require an immediate independent medical exam to confirm that if she can crochet, she can keyboard. It might even be easier if you call her and tell her what you already know, and hope that she comes clean on her own. Up to you!

Is it Work, or is it Play.com?

Jack had to go out of town. In the meantime, his was the only computer that had the report that his boss, Pete, needed to access while he was gone, so he emailed Jack, got his password, and asked him to walk him through his computer to find it. In the process of logging on and digging into Jack's computer, Pete encountered a few distractions and diversions along the way. From pop-up ads to numerous non-business icons, questionable bookmarks, and a whole host of suspicious junk on Jack's computer, his was a party machine!

After Pete got the report he needed, he couldn't help but to do a little more digging. The more he dug, the more non-business activity he discovered. Jack was not only paying his personal bills online, but he was also having a good old time visiting online casinos, dating sites, and whatever else you could imagine to "pass the time" at work.

At first, Pete felt a little guilty, having dug around into Jack's computer, but the more he thought about it, the more angry he got. But how could he confront Jack without telling him that he was prying into his computer, well beyond just looking up the report he needed? Did Pete cross the line here? Does he have the right to look at Jack's "personal" business?

Analysis

OK, so what's wrong with a little game of solitaire while sitting through a boring conference call, or while a vendor drones on and on about their innovative business solutions? Maybe nothing. But, that's your call. In other words, as an employer, you must determine when you feel the cost/benefit justifies it or should prohibit it. It can range anywhere from zero tolerance, to "have at it!"

But let's talk specifically about Jack. He's not just playing an occasional game of hearts. He's engaged in personal business, and we're not just talking about online bill paying, either. Even if his activities do not cross the line into bad taste, which they probably do, it is obvious that he is spending way too much time not doing his real job! Hello?

Many people misinterpret the whole spectrum of rights that we enjoy in society as being absolutely transferable to the workplace. They are not! Rights like privacy, protection from search and seizure, etc., are intended to protect us from our own government, not our employer. An employer's decision to dig through an employee's emails in computer storage does not violate any provisions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act either. This law bans the "interception" only if it occurs at the time of transmission and exempts the owner, (i.e., the employer), of an email system from any claim alleging an illegal "seizure" of stored emails. Like it or not, you do not own that computer. You do not own your locker. You do not own your desk. If you want to play blackjack online, buy your own computer and do it from home!

Pete has nothing to apologize for. He is perfectly within his rights as an agent of his employer to call Jack to the carpet, boot up his computer and ask, "What's up with this?" However, it would probably be prudent to assume that Jack may just be the tip of the Internet iceberg. If you have no formal policy or procedure in place that addresses Internet and email protocols, now's probably the time to develop one.

Activities such as Jack's fall into a category called "system slop," which is defined by how far people can push the limits of formal structure, policies, procedures, etc., without getting into trouble. How much system slop exists in your organization? In other words, how far can people go beyond the realm of reasonableness and still not be in violation of some rule? Human beings have a unique ability to figure out pretty quickly where the limits are, and then play right to the edge.

Every organization has some degree of system slop, and some of it can actually be positive. It is virtually impossible to regulate every conceivable behavior, and it isn't advisable even to try. No one wants to work in a police state. Everyone needs a little release now and then. It could be as simple as a two-minute game of trashcan basketball, or sharing an email cartoon. One cannot, nor should not, try to regulate behavior to that degree. It's not only harmless but can actually be necessary to keep a semblance of sanity. It can be both liberating and invigorating.

So, once you clean up Jack's act, there are several possible approaches that will curb future such abuses. First, develop and disseminate a very clear statement of policy as to what is acceptable and what is not. It can be very clear. But again, it is your decision.

What kind of operation or culture do you want? Anything goes? No holds barred? Or, work is work and play is play, and never the twain shall meet?

Assuming you want something closer to the latter, you not only need to specify exactly what is acceptable, but also how you are going to ensure that no one crosses the line without putting everyone into bondage. In other words, it is one thing to read the riot act, but quite another to enforce it. Once the new rules are laid out, it is essential that people know you mean it, but with minimal cost and disruption.

For example, if you had a zero-tolerance drug policy, but never tested anyone, you would have nothing more than a toothless tiger. However, you don't have to go to the opposite extreme and create a Gestapo state either, testing everyone all the time. That's why random testing is so effective. It's like a lottery. You never know when your number might come up!

The same principle applies here. In behavioral terms, it is called the "Sentinel Effect." Have you ever seen video cameras up in the corners of retail stores? Whether they have film in them or not, the mere presence is a deterrent to theft, like a sentinel. If you were a burglar wandering around a nice neighborhood planning your next heist, would you pick the house that has a big security sign in the front yard? It's a game of poker that's not worth playing and a hand that's not worth calling.

Again, you make the call. But with all the viruses, parasites, and other stuff that can really junk up your servers, not to mention the loss of productivity and laissez-faire culture you are fostering, it just makes good business sense to be very clear on this one.

The X-pense Account

Richard was a field marketing executive who called on the company's various regional offices to consult with their marketing representatives to help them develop their local strategies and to ensure consistency with the overall corporate marketing objectives. He was a well-dressed, articulate, and personable young man. He was also single and marketing himself as well.

The bad news was that he was on the road a lot. The good news was that he had a lot of latitude about when and where he went, as long as objectives were met within budget and on time. As in any company, he had an expense account. And, as in most companies, there were policies and guidelines about allowable expenses and limits.

One day, the accounting department conducted a random audit of one of Dick's expense accounts. This was standard procedure and just good accounting practice to quality-check expense reimbursements, receipts, etc. He was not being targeted for any reason.

Upon reviewing a hotel receipt, there appeared to be several "miscellaneous" charges, some of which were substantial in amount. In fact, upon cross-referencing with past receipts from the same bed and breakfast, the room charge seemed to vary widely. One time it was $75.00 per night, and another it was as much as $175.00 per night. Same room, same B&B. Additionally, Dick's phone charges seemed to be excessive at times.

When the accounting clerk called the B&B to ask about their rate structure, miscellaneous charges, etc., she was referred to the owner, who acted rather sheepish and, at times, downright evasive. Upon further questioning and subsequent pressure, the owner finally "fessed up" and said that because Richard was a frequent guest, she agreed to do him some favors in exchange for his customer loyalty. Marketing to the marketer? Favors? What kind of favors?

Bottom line: Dick was ordering more than room service and charging it to the room. Many B&B's lump the meals and the room charge together into one price. This is not unusual. But this one bundled massages, dial-a-date, porno videos and just about anything else that would "satisfy" the customer—in this case, Dick.

The proprietor admitted embarrassment and said that they only did it for Dick because he was rather adamant about his needs and the expectation that they should help get them satisfied via his expense account, and she didn't want to lose his business. He is one of their best customers, after all!

On paper he was only charging room and board and phone. And as we all know, padding an expense account is no new thing. In fact, phone charges are reimbursable, as are bundled room and board charges. Even drinking one's dinner is a common practice for some business travelers. Whether Dick spent his meal allowance on beef or bourbon, who would know? It's a restaurant charge! And who knows if an employee really tipped the valet five bucks? Where do you draw the line? He didn't technically exceed any spending limits, didn't break any laws, and what he does on his own time is his own business, isn't it?

Analysis

Nope. Dick, who has been making himself Rich at your expense, to remain employed, has a duty to follow common sense standards of behavior, including ethical behavior. Under the applicable business reimbursement policy and guidelines—applied in a common sense fashion—Dick had the right to reimbursement for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses for his overnight trips. That meant reasonable lodging, food, and car expenses, plus legitimate miscellaneous expenses.

It's your call as to whether you give him a second chance or not. If his performance is otherwise exemplary you can always have a "Come to Jesus" meeting with him (not literally!), put him on probation, and keep him on a short leash for a while.

Or you can just dump Dick altogether. "Miscellaneous," by no stretch of logic or ethics means "X-rated" personal enjoyment expenses. By getting reimbursed for and attempting to get reimbursed for "X-rated" expenses, our boy Dick acted contrary to common sense standards of ethical behavior and may deserve to hit the road, this time without expense reimbursements—or a job!

This is a judgment call. But whatever you decide, just be sure you are consistent in how you apply the policy to others. If Dick is a water-walker and makes you tons of money in sales, then you may want to issue a warning before throwing him to the wolves. But that does not mean that he is exempt from being a professional and behaving as such, which includes following both the letter and the spirit of company policies, procedures and protocols.

The Two-Year Head Cold

Alex was a hard charger. A real go-getter. When he sunk his teeth into a project, it got done. His energy level was unmatched by anyone. He was a bit moody at times, but that's a small price to pay for the incredible results he consistently attained. And now his hard work was about to be rewarded.

The CEO had seen him in several meetings and on special projects in the past, and was impressed with his ambition and style. He was looking for someone to head up a major new account, and he had one guy in mind...Alex!

"Alex has the kind of drive and energy that will WOW this client!" he said. He talked with Alex's current department head, Mary, and with Connie, the Human Resources manager, about the promotion. Although neither of them put the brakes on the CEO's enthusiasm, there was guarded optimism about such a proposal. The HR manager asked for some time to check Alex's personnel history and to get his ducks in a row before "blessing" the final decision. He was obviously trying to buy some time.

When the CEO left the room, Mary and Connie conferred. Both knew what the other was thinking without saying a word. Alex's hard charging, go-getter behavior was not just rooted in a passion for his position, but in a cocaine addiction. The CEO's exposure to Alex was limited to the occasional staff meeting or project briefing. He wasn't aware of the fact that Alex has had an unexplainable head cold for the past two years. Not to mention the fact that he has to go to the bathroom more often than a seagull on Ex-Lax^®.

Granted, no one has officially confirmed Alex's addiction. His performance has been exemplary. He hasn't missed work, and with the exception of his outward symptomatic behavior, no one would have a clue, as the CEO has clearly demonstrated. Should they approve the move, or spill the beans? Are there any other options?

Analysis #1

There are several issues and considerations in these kinds of cases, and even some different legal philosophies on how to approach a drug or alcohol abuse situation. Here's the first one, according to Mr. Eugene K. Connors, Esq. of the law firm Reed Smith, LLP.

Mary and Connie should spill the (coca) beans here, but not too quickly. Suspecting Alex of cocaine abuse is not knowing or being able to prove it as true. So Mary and Connie need to use the extra time they bought to investigate and prove cocaine abuse by Alex. If their company has a written drug policy, what happens next should be easy. Running frequently to a bathroom is suspicious behavior, typically enough to satisfy any reasonable cause or suspicion required under most drug policies to drug-test an existing employee. If Alex refuses to be tested, he is subject to discharge or other discipline for insubordination (for refusing to cooperate in a reasonable investigation), and, in addition or alternatively, depending upon the language of the drug policy, the refusal may count as an automatic "positive" drug test result.

But let's assume he takes the test. He will pass it or flunk it. If he passes it, there is no proof of cocaine abuse at this point, and Mary and Connie can and should proceed with the proposed promotion. If Alex flunks, they should subject him to rehabilitation, reinstatement on a last chance basis, and future random testing, or discharge him, again depending upon the wording of the policy itself.

But what if there is no written drug policy? Even so, Mary and Connie's company probably has a rule against drug use at work. Therefore, they still should have the right to drug-test him. How and why? To investigate whether there has been a violation of the rule, again stemming from his suspicious runs to the bathroom.

But what if there is no written rule? Not a problem. Let's not forget our common-sense standards of ethical behavior. By any stretch of logic, any employee knows or should know that he or she has no right to show up for work or otherwise be in work related activities while under the influence of forbidden drugs. Instead an employee's duty is to perform at 100% when scheduled to work. That means, once again, Mary and Connie can test Alex and take appropriate action consistent with the drug test results.

Analysis #2

Another school of thought takes quite a different stance, based more exclusively on job performance. In other words, if Alex is performing his job well, some legal advisors recommend a more hands-off approach. A good place to start is to understand the concept of "reasonable suspicion" and its ramifications on testing.

According to Jonathan A. Segal, Esq. a partner in Wolf, Block, Schorr, and Solis-Cohen's Employment Services Practice Group, reasonable suspicion tests can be divided into two categories. The first are those situations in which an employee's job performance is affected by the use of drugs or abuse of alcohol, even though the employee is not under the influence while at work. The second set of circumstances are those in which the employee is actually under the influence of drugs or alcohol while on duty. According to Mr. Segal, drug testing is never justified in the first set of cases and only rarely in the second.

Testing employees who manifest behaviors indicative of drug or alcohol abuse is unnecessary, insufficient, and unwise, according to Mr. Segal, even when the employer has reason to believe that performance problems are related to substance abuse. Testing in these circumstances is unnecessary because the reason for the performance deficiency is of no concern to the employer. The employer should be responding to the performance problem through its progressive discipline and/or corrective counseling procedures without inquiring as to its underlying cause. While drugs and alcohol clearly have an adverse effect on the workplace, one of the dangers of screening is its focus on the cause instead of the effect.

A question that arises frequently is whether supervisors should mention their belief that the performance problem may be related to the abuse of alcohol or drugs. Of course, this confrontation may serve as a valuable catalyst for the employee to seek rehabilitation. But it may also backfire against the employer, because if the employee denies having a drug or alcohol problem, which is likely since denial is part of the disease, and if adverse action is subsequently taken against the employee, the employee will assume, and claim, that the employer's action was based on the misguided perception that the employee was a substance abuser.

A less pristine but safer alternative to confronting the employee specifically about a believed drug or alcohol problem is to let the employee know that his or her job is on the line and encourage the person to seek help if there is any underlying problem that may be causing the performance deficiency, without specifically mentioning substance abuse.

According to Mr. Segal, testing employees when there is unacceptable workplace conduct or performance is not only unnecessary but also insufficient. While drug and alcohol abuse can cause performance deficiencies, there are a number of patterns not related to substance abuse that could be the cause, including family problems, marital problems, physical health problems, mental health problems, workplace stress, and even financial problems.

In this regard, drug testing is a dangerously myopic approach because there is an implication that when an employee tests negative, the conduct that gave rise to the test is no longer a problem. After all, if the cause for the test were a problem in and of itself, there would have been no need for the test, which is in fact usually the case. It should not matter to an employer whether an employee's unacceptable on-the-job performance is because of a drug, marital problems, or financial problems. Regardless of the cause, the employer's focus should be on the effect.

Finally, drug and alcohol testing may be counterproductive. That is, it may preclude the employer from discharging an employee whom it otherwise could have discharged. Individuals who are dependent on drugs or alcohol are considered disabled under virtually every state law. Consequently, an adverse employment decision cannot be made against them unless their condition is job-related. Of course, if the use of drugs or alcohol have a negative impact on their job performance, then the dependency is job-related.

There is, however, one legal wrinkle. Under state handicap discrimination laws, a condition is not job-related if, with a reasonable accommodation, the job-relatedness of the condition can be eliminated. In the context of drug and alcohol dependency, some courts have held that the reasonable accommodation requirement imposes on employers an obligation to provide employees with an opportunity for rehabilitation prior to discharge. The courts are much less likely to impose this obligation on the employer if the employer does not learn that the employee had a drug or alcohol problem until after his discharge.

Let's get back to our specific case of Alex. As far as we know, there are no job-performance issues on which we can hang our hat. However, there are suspicions, based upon his "hyper-alertness," his constant head cold, and his frequent trips to the can, that there may be something going on.

According to Mr. Segal, in those situations in which the employer has reason to believe the employee is under the influence, but the conclusion is not inescapable and there is inadequate evidence of impact on job performance to justify discipline, these are the ONLY kinds of situations in which drug and alcohol testing is appropriate. Limiting testing to these circumstances will mean that for most employers, its policy of testing employees when there is reasonable suspicion will involve hardly any testing at all.

But just because reasonable-suspicion testing will be the exception and not the rule, it does not follow that an employer can afford to have a substance abuse policy that does not authorize reasonable-suspicion testing. To the contrary, notwithstanding its limited application, reasonable-suspicion testing is a critical component of a comprehensive substance abuse control program.

The Customer is Not Always Right?

Lucretia is our customer. Well, at least her company is. And a relatively good customer at that, in terms of their purchase volume and the length of time they have been doing business with us. But it comes at a price. And Lucretia is the price. She is a first class _ _ _ _ _ (you can fill in the blanks yourself ... just make sure it is bad!)

No matter how long she does business with us, and no matter how well she knows us, she seems to get some weird pleasure out of making us jump through unnecessary, sadistic hoops. Sometimes the same hoops, over and over. And she is always trying to get something for nothing. Unless she can find a way to make us squirm and give in on something, she isn't happy. In fact, she isn't even happy then. She's just a miserable human being.

Because Lucretia's company (OK, her Daddy's company) has been a customer since the early days of the company's founding, when we would have put up with anything for cash flow, we feel like we are obligated to put up with her shenanigans. But not all of our employees see it that way. In fact, fewer and fewer are feeling charitable toward Lucretia. It seems that Lucretia is even more abusive when she encounters a new employee who has yet to be "baptized" by her. It's as if she has to put them in their place right from the start, to let them know who's the boss.

She asks for special reports; wants unusual payment plans, terms, and conditions; submits last-minute orders and changes and wants them fulfilled by the original deadline; and the list goes on. It's a known fact that she puts unreasonable demands and deadlines on staff for things that she just lets sit for weeks anyway, and then doesn't even need or use them.

It has been suggested that we go to her superiors and blow the whistle on her, but she reports to the owner, and the owner is, yes...her Daddy. To make matters even worse, she is the heir apparent to the family fortune, so going to her boss (Daddy) could be the kiss of death, if not now, at least later. You deal with Lucretia, or you don't deal!

Since the company's account base is growing and manpower resources are stretched thin to accommodate newer and more appreciative and profitable customers, people are becoming more and more vocal about the stress and brain drain caused by Lucretia. Are she and her company really worth the agony? Is the customer always right?

Analysis

On a purely cost-benefit basis, this customer costs a lot more per sales dollar than any other customer. She is high-maintenance. Even though the rule of thumb is that it costs five times more to get a new customer than to keep an existing one, Lucretia may be the exception to that rule. It might actually be a better use of our time to woo new customers than to continue to schmooze her. But it just doesn't seem logical for a company to turn business away—especially a long term customer. Does it?

Well, before you throw the baby out with the bath water, start with a "Can we talk?" meeting with Lucretia. Cater to her need for dominance and superiority by taking an apologetic tone, saying: "We are sorry that we have not been able to meet your expectations, and have come to the conclusion that there is nothing that we seem to be able to do to satisfy you." Then put it in her lap for a response.

She will either see the light of day, and may even respect you more for the revelation, or she will continue to be difficult and offer no suggestions other than to continue to cater to her unreasonableness.

Assuming the worst, i.e., the latter scenario, and you have decided that this is not negotiable and that something truly must change in your business relationship with Lucretia in order to continue doing business with her, you must then be willing and able to take the risk of talking to Daddy. In other words, he who can walk, has the power. Rather than just saying, "We don't want to do business with you anymore," as a last resort, ask for a meeting with "the owner" and lay it on the line. Once again, use the counseling sandwich approach:

1. Open the meeting acknowledging your long, mutually rewarding history together, how much you have valued it, and how you have tried to satisfy them at all costs because of that. Then move to:
2. The issue. However, depersonalize it. Rather than crucify Lucretia, which would be fun and cathartic, admit that you do not believe you have been able to satisfy them recently, and that you are at a loss as to how to do so, and that you need their help to identify how you can "get things right the first time" and not waste their time. This should open the door for specifics, which they will ask for, rather than you spilling your guts on the table up front.
3. Once the issues are identified (such as change orders, repeat requests, etc.) either Daddy and/or Lucretia will have to own up, or you can tell them that you regret not being able to be their supplier anymore, but that you will be glad to find an alternate vendor for them so they are not left in the lurch.
4. Now here's the fun part. Assuming the answer to #3 is yes, that the best alternative would be to find an alternative vendor, this is when you direct them to your competition. In every crisis there is an opportunity! Let Lucretia drain their resources for a while.

Just a final footnote: Before doing any of this, make sure your employees (the ones who despise this customer the most, and who have the most to gain by your turning them loose) understand exactly why you are making this unusual business decision to let a customer go, and that this does not open the door for them to throw every difficult customer under a bus.

Also tell them that if you are willing to bite the bullet and turn this customer away, then it is incumbent upon them to help you find new customers to fill the void. Nothing is free in this life, and you're doing them a real favor here. Now they owe you one!

Pets are People Too

Annie loves her dogs. Annie loves her cats. Annie loves animals. Annie is married without children. Or is she? Not if you ask her! Annie's employer is actually one of the more liberal and progressive companies in town, but still not liberal enough for Annie's liking. They provide onsite daycare for employees' dependent children, they have a flexible benefits plan, and even onsite personal services such as dry cleaning pickup and delivery, massages, and other new age perks and privileges for their workers.

So what's the problem? Well, Annie's pets are as important to her as other employees' children are to them. When they are ill, she wants family medical leave. She would even like to have dependent medical coverage for them if she could. When her husband works day shift, she wants day care for Fido and Fifi. She even talks to them on the phone at least once a day (her husband calls, says they miss her, and holds the phone to their ears while Annie talks doggie/kitty talk to them). One time, her assistant even interrupted an onsite client conference to beckon Annie out of the meeting to answer such a call, which the client could overhear.

So, where do you draw the line in the kitty litter?

Analysis

Animals are not people. Easy enough? There is a reason why employers do not provide the same benefits to employees' pets as they do to children and partners. Cost and common sense! Not that an employer couldn't self-fund such a thing, but it doesn't make a whole lot of business sense, which is why Annie will be hard pressed to find alternative employment with such benefits. But if she can, let her! That's the beauty of living in a free society! Employment-at-will can be a wonderful thing!

Regarding her obsession manifesting itself in front of clients and disrupting the normal workflow, this is a performance counseling issue (see Behavioral Change Map). It has nothing to do with equal opportunity for animals or compassion for our furry little friends. It is no different than expecting other employees to make proper arrangements for other personal matters in such a way as to minimize disruption or distractions at work. It's called planning and self-management. Shape up or ship out, Annie (maybe on an Ark?)!

Helen the Hypochondriac

Helen comes in handy at times, especially if you're in need of a home remedy or alternative medical advice. At other times, she is truly a headache. You see, Helen has a cure for anything. Too bad none of them work for her, because she is always suffering from some new malady. One day it might be sick building syndrome; the next day it is seasonal affect disorder (SAD); she even brought in a feng shui consultant to correct the karma in her cubicle (see Feng Shui Phoebe).

Ordinarily, one could just ignore such obsessions. But with Helen, she thrusts them upon everyone else. If you sneeze, she comes running into your office with zinc tablets. If you look unusually tired, she is counseling you about some new herb you should be taking. She's even been known to apply accupressure to people without even being asked or given permission.

She's not selling anything; she's just preaching it. But there is an air of judgmentalism when one does not heed her sage advice. If all this stuff is so good for you, why is Helen always ill? Is her behavior an excessive intrusion on others? Is some intervention necessary here?

Analysis

Essentially Helen has a good heart—maybe not literally, but figuratively! Her intentions are good. She's just a pain in the rear (for which she may also have a cure!). Seriously, with the exception of her putting her hands on someone without permission, her behavior is not intolerable.

Granted, she is either unaware or unconcerned about how she is perceived, but that is true of a lot of people—maybe even you! Remember low self-monitoring in Chapter 1? So, unless she is dispensing drugs or crossing the line of one's personal space (i.e., touching), get over it! You don't have to take her advice or her remedies. And who knows, maybe she has a few good ones up her sleeve!

As is true in almost every case, the bigger issue boils down to job performance. If her behavior is taking her away from her duties, or keeping others from theirs, then intervention is justified, not because of her quasi-medical practice, but because she and her patients should be working! Focus on that issue, if necessary, and the other issues should take care of themselves.

Human Billboards

God Bless America! Save the Whales! Abortion Kills! Vote No on Issue X! There are enough causes, campaigns and crises in this world that anyone can identify with something. But is it appropriate to have them emblazoned on your bosom at work? According to Neon Leon, it certainly is.

Acme Bio-Micro-Solutions is like most other companies that care about social causes and want to be good corporate citizens. They have blood drives, the annual United Way campaign, walks for the cure, and other corporately correct endeavors. They provide buttons and banners to promote them and even give people time off the job to support them.

But, who decides which cause is worth championing? What about the union activist who distributes lapel buttons to contract holdouts to "Just Say No" to the latest company offer? What about the right-to-life group within the company who wears "abortion is murder" buttons? What about political campaign buttons from all extremes of the political spectrum? What about the gay population that is lobbying for domestic partner benefits at work?

Are these disruptive activities that should be stopped, or just examples of the right to free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, etc.? Can a company dictate what an employee can wear on his/her clothing? And, who decides what stays, and what goes?

Analysis

Remember Al Naturale? Remember Walking Art? Employees of a private (non-government) employer have no freedoms or rights of expression or speech. Plus, every employer has a legal duty to keep a workplace safe. That duty stems from federal or state safety laws like OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Act) or court-created tort (Don't be negligent!) law.

To allow Leon, or any employee, to "advertise" positions certain to cause dissention, if not outright fights, would be dumb for any employer. That is why companies, by written or unwritten common-sense standards of behavior, can and should require employees to "keep quiet" or "calm down" controversial, political, religious, and other potentially dissention-causing "sales pitches." That employer approach prevents most problems, from abortion disputes to XXX T-shirts and other potentially volatile slogans and messages.

But what of union messages, like "Ma Bell is a cheap mother?" Under our labor laws, an employer cannot say "no" to such pro-union or even anti-union messages during an employee's free working hours, like meals and breaks, unless the messages are in seriously bad taste. And "Ma Bell" is at least pushing that line. But an employer can stop such messages during scheduled working time, so long as the employer forbids T-shirt and similar messages like "Be Happy" and "Just Do It."

Employers cannot have it both ways. If they forbid all messages, they can forbid "union" messages when employees are supposed to be working. But if they allow some messages, they have to allow at least non-controversial messages that have a "union tone" to them.

Long Live the Confederacy!

Buford was a good ole boy. He was a member of an organization of direct descendents of Confederate veterans and displayed it proudly on his toolbox with a flag on every side. He felt pretty safe about it since the toolbox was his personal property, and also served as his personal affirmation of his Constitutional right to freedom of speech.

Unfortunately, some of Buford's black co-workers saw it differently, particularly in the context of a heated debate in the state of South Carolina as to its racist underpinnings. They went to their employer and asked the company to intervene.

Buford's supervisor asked him to remove the stickers from his toolbox, and even offered to buy him a new one, so he could keep his confederate-laden toolbox at home.

Buford's response? No deal! His pride was not for sale. What's an employer to do now?

Analysis

On the surface, this case may appear to be the same as "Human Billboards," but it is not. Bottom line, Buford can be fired for violating the company's anti-harassment policy, if they have one. Buford's claim that he is merely exercising his Constitutional right to free speech, protected by the First Amendment, does not fly.

Buford's employer is not seeking to interfere with his right to fly the Confederate flag, or with participating in the cause in his personal life. They are, however, refusing to tolerate the display of his political beliefs in the workplace, especially when it creates legitimate claims of racial harassment. Remove the flags, or remove Buford. Take your toolbox and go home.

System Tester Sam

Do you know what a qwertyuiop is? If you read my first book, Get Weird!, you would. If you didn't, shame on you! Look at the top row of keys on your computer keyboard, or if you are a militant technology holdout, look at your typewriter. What do you see? Yes, a totally illogical arrangement of letters that you are expected to learn and use. Bottom line: An organizational qwertyuiop is anything that makes no sense, is outdated and/or illogical, but continues because "that's the way we've always done it!"

In an organization, a qwertyuiop might be a report that no one reads, or a committee that has outlived its value, or a policy that costs more than it saves, but has become a sacred cow. Get it? Well, Sam gets it, and he has made it a personal crusade to expose his company's warts on a regular basis. To him, sacred cows make great steaks!

Sam is a very high-results-oriented individual and has a strong track record in his department. He actually has developed quite a reputation for being able to get things done, going around the bureaucracy, and leading other successful crusades, which has served him well so far. He is a master at manipulating the informal power structure. But this time, he may have gone too far.

Specifically, he and his peers are supposed to send in a weekly report every Friday to detail their week's activities, progress, etc. Not a big deal, but they also have to compile a monthly report due by the second working day of each month for the prior month, then a quarterly report and ultimately an annual report. See the rub here?

Well, rather than "work the system" and try to get his company to see the waste and illogic at play here (Sam already knows that would be a futile effort anyway) he decided to prove a point, that nobody reads all these reports anyway. So, in one of his quarterly reports he decided to make a mockery of it by saying things like, "If you are reading this report, you must not have read my prior three monthly reports," or, "This is a test; it is only a test; if there was any real news, you would have already known about it by reading my last three monthly reports and my last 12 weekly reports," etc.

The sad thing is, the only person who ever really appreciated his satire was his assistant, because she is the one who typed and distributed it for him. He was right! No one read it! So he made his point, but no one knew. What fun is that?

So, being the maverick that he was, and now feeling doubly and justifiably cocky, he decided to take it one step further. He went to his boss's office and the conversation went something like this:

Sam: "Hey boss, did you get my quarterly report?"

Boss: "Yes."

Sam: "Was it okay?"

Boss: "Yes."

Sam: "Did you actually read it?"

Boss: "Well, I scanned it."

Sam: "Well, I think you might want to read it again. Here's another copy."

Boss: Reads the first few lines, turns beat red, looks up and says, "Why did you do such a thing?

Sam: "To make a point. The same point I have been trying to make for ages, but no one will listen. That these reports are a complete waste of time because no one reads them."

Boss: "But my boss gets a copy of these!"

Sam: "Has he said anything about it?"

Boss: "Well, ...no."

Sam: "My point exactly!"

Boss: "You are going to get into big trouble if you continue to do these types of things, Sam!"

Sam: "Big trouble? For trying to save the company time and money? For increasing productivity? For improving morale? Do you realize how many people hate these reports as much as I do? Do you realize that every Friday, and every second day of the month, and every quarter, and every January everyone in this company has to stop doing productive work to generate reports that not only have to be typed, but copied, collated, stapled, routed, filed, and eventually destroyed, and that no one reads? We have been on a cost-cutting kick for as long as I can remember. We have had layoffs, a hiring freeze, benefits cuts, and have taken all kinds of belt-tightening measures that have destroyed morale. Here is an opportunity to save money and boost morale at the same time. And I am going to get into big trouble? You should be giving me an award for this! I'll take one tenth of the savings and retire!"

What does the boss do now?

Analysis

Well, as you have probably learned by now, the answer is "it depends!" If you are a traditional, insecure boss, you give Sam hell, discipline him, and move him through the progressive discipline process with two possible outcomes: correct his behavior or face eventual termination. What a waste that would be for everyone. That's a lose–lose.

Deep down, Sam is not really a "trouble maker." Sane people do not get out of bed in the morning with the conscious objective of being a jerk. Sam's behavior is rooted in an attempt to actually improve things. Granted, his means are a little rough, but if the boss can park his ego for a few minutes and look at Sam's intentions, he would discover that they are actually positive for the organization.

And perhaps if there had been a mechanism in place for him (and others) to air their frustrations and/or to submit their cost-saving and revenue-generating ideas, such extreme measures would not be necessary. It is called "Creative Dissatisfaction." You will learn about this concept in more detail in Chapter 3, "What's IN with High-Performers?"

When a bright, conscientious, and caring employee becomes frustrated with the status quo and has no outlet by which to be heard, the energy becomes negative and eventually must be directed somewhere. Short of quitting the company, it may develop into cynicism, bitterness, and in Sam's case, is ultimately expressed by testing and poking at the system.

If you really want to take the wind out of Sam's sails, thank him for his observation and promise to look into the situation. And if you can respond by eliminating some of the redundant reports, you give him credit and then set up a more formal mechanism for him and others to submit future ideas in a more professional and productive way. It's called gain-sharing, and is a win–win!

Between you and him, you can still express your disappointment in his behavior, but you should also acknowledge his motivation and the value of his contribution and admit that you wish there had been a better way for such insights to be shared without risking embarrassment for both of you. Sam will be so shocked that you didn't publicly lynch him that he may start to feel better about you and the company, and think twice about the way he airs his frustrations in the future. You are no longer the enemy in his mind!

But it is up to you to make sure that he, and others, do not have to resort to such measures in the future. Discipline and/or termination in this case could be a losing proposition for everyone.

Otto versus Oblivious

Otto is a creative, hard working marketing specialist, in spite of the mutual hatred that exists between him and his boss, Irene. Otto's hatred is not completely baseless, however. He has to be completely self-motivated because Irene does everything possible to demean and demoralize him. She has not only made it clear that she has no respect for sales and marketing people in general, but Otto makes a great target, and anytime he proposes anything new, she shoots him down. It has reached a point where they cannot, and will not, even be in the same room together.

As a result, Irene goes nowhere near his cubicle. In the meantime, Otto's cubicle has become a den of disdain, with pictures of Irene as the bull's eye in a target, slanderous slogans about her being a "narcissistic ignoramus" and a plethora of other "I hate the boss!" self-motivating graffiti to 1) serve as catharsis for his anger, and 2) to publicize and take advantage of the fact that she will never see it anyway because she avoids Otto like the plague. This is an ironic attempt to get the respect of his peers by being disrespectful of his boss.

Unfortunately, his peers aren't the only ones who see it. Outside vendors, customers, and consultants who have to visit with Otto and the marketing department can't help but see it as well. It's an embarrassment to many of Otto's co-workers, but they feel helpless in going to Irene about it, for obvious reasons. They would, in effect, be pointing out her spinelessness. Can this be ignored?

Analysis

No. It would be nice to just end there, but some explaining is necessary. Irene is at least as culpable as Otto in this case. In fact, more so! As a manager, she is responsible for both setting the tone and taking action where necessary, and she has done neither.

Additionally, Irene's boss must be held accountable as well. Where is s/he? It looks like there is a culture of denial and avoidance, at least in this department. And since this behavior is visible to outsiders, including customers, there is no excuse for tolerating it, regardless of how valuable and creative Otto may be. You may love his work, but you cannot love this abhorrent behavior.

As a co-worker or co-manager, someone should blow the whistle with either Irene's boss or with Human Resources. If enough people bring it to the attention of an internal third party, a critical mass will develop that cannot be denied, and no one person is being hung out to dry.

Once the issue has been exposed, it is then incumbent upon Irene's boss and/or Human Resources to bring Otto's cubicle décor and decorum to a screeching halt, and to give Irene an ultimatum as to fulfilling her supervisory responsibilities. It's her job, period!

Even though Otto's behavior is tacky and unprofessional, it is ultimately Irene's responsibility to deal with it. She needs to grow some giblets and face the facts. After all, what does she have to lose? Otto hates her anyway!

Feng Shui Phoebe

Phoebe is a "New Age" employee. She is an enlightened web-master who is always into the latest right-brained, spiritual movement. First it was aromatherapy, in which she burned strange oils and incense in her cubicle. Then it was acupressure. You don't want to know what she did with that.

But now she is a disciple of Feng Shui, which is based on a Chinese philosophy of life in which everything from relationships, to health, to career success can be influenced by the position or direction of your furniture, the color of your walls, and numerous other esoteric variables of one's physical environment.

Ironically, Phoebe found out about Feng Shui at a conference to which the company sent her. It wasn't supposed to be the point of the conference, but someone had an alluring exhibit and a slick way to suck her right in, although that wasn't much of a challenge with Phoebe. Now she is convinced that all that ails her physically, psychically, and professionally can be attributed to the location of her office, the direction of her desk, the lack of a window facing east, and even the scent of her and her co-workers' environment.

A hobby is one thing, but an obsession is another, and Phoebe is a charter member of the obsession-of-the-month club. It is becoming annoying to both her boss and her co-workers because no matter what the subject—performance reviews, project reports, sick days, etc—it is attributed to some mystical cause, rather than personal responsibility and accountability.

Phoebe claims that all will be well again if she can just get an office with a window facing east, and if she can decorate it to the required specifications of her Feng Shui consultant's analysis. Even though her co-workers' workspaces are all wrong too, according to her, she claims she can prevent their ignorance of Feng Shui from affecting her performance if she could just create her own space. She is even willing to pay for it herself—the consultation, the painting, the decorating, the positioning of the furniture, the lighting, etc.

Is this a reasonable request? Is it one that the company should respect? If they do, will that open the door to others wanting to create their own unusual space, and if so, what then?

Analysis

Neither Phoebe nor anyone else has any right to demand re-engineering an organization's workspace, unless there is a safety or hygiene issue or a need to accommodate a disability. Personal opinion as to décor, layout, or any other esoteric aspect of a workplace is the sole purview of the employer.

If Phoebe wants to face east, she can rotate her chair. After all, what if you allow Phoebe to have her way, and then someone else brings in their own personal Feng Shui consultant, and decides that some other arrangement is better, and so on? It's a Pandora's box. Nip it in the bud!

On a more compassionate and even more productive level, some organizations have loosened up considerably about allowing employees to tailor their cubicles or other workspaces in terms of accessories, colors, etc., and some even give employees a decorating allowance to customize their space (within reason). But it does not extend to picking and choosing offices, locations, or other more significant aspects of workspace design and architecture.

Circadian Charlie

Charlie was not like Phoebe. He is not on top of the spiritual or some of the more ephemeral influences on his performance; however, he has proven that, without a doubt, his most creative time of the day (or night) is at 3 a.m. Charlie has more patents and new product and service developments than all his co-workers combined. He is considered a creative genius, albeit strange. His weird brain was always going, but it seemed to go its strongest at 3 a.m. So, what's the problem?

No one disputes the validity of Charlie's creative cycles. In fact, being a progressive and innovative company, they were quite aware that there is such a phenomenon as circadian rhythms that all people have, the timing of which varies from individual to individual. In other words, there are certain times and circumstances in which everyone is more creative, more alert, more effective, etc.

However, because Charlie had identified and mastered his personal circadian cycle, he was actually able to expect and to capitalize upon it each night, resulting in amazing breakthroughs, but causing him to lose sleep and to be essentially useless at the office at 8 a.m. As a result, he tried to schedule mindless activities first thing in the morning, like going through his mail, reading journals, or just reviewing his daily planner. He could not be productive or even attentive at meetings, or work on heavy mental tasks until later in the day. In fact, if it were up to him, he wouldn't even come to work until at least 10 or 11 a.m. at the earliest.

To add even more weirdness to the mix, Charlie had an administrative assistant, Isabel, to whom he would dictate his dreams the following morning. In order to capture the essence of his 3 a.m. brainspurts, Charlie would ask Isabel to "take a letter" while he shared his mental ramblings so he could see them on paper and develop them further. Isabel wasn't bothered by this, and was used to it. In fact, since Charlie was so revered for his breakthroughs and patents, she actually took some pride in being his first sounding board.

After realizing that he could not control his early morning schedule 100%, because others actually preferred early morning staff meetings and projects, Charlie approached his boss about going onto a rather odd form of flextime. His proposal was that on those days in which he had been up at 3 a.m. "creating" that he would not be expected into the office until 10 a.m. so he could catch a couple hours of quality sleep between his brainstorming activity and reporting for work. After all, those two hours between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m. were essentially useless for him anyway!

The interesting challenge here is that Charlie does produce, and his company has great respect for the oddities of a creative culture. Charlie's novel thinking and innovations have benefited the company greatly, and he has a proven track record of results. But how do we accommodate his circadian rhythms and how does one know when he is innovating and when he is sleeping? And what impact will such an accommodation have on his peers' perception of fairness and me-too-ism? Is there a solution that will allow Charlie to continue innovating while not having negative unintended consequences elsewhere?

Analysis

There are several options one could consider in this case, depending upon personal bias and the organization's culture. As usual, there are no hard and fast rules about these types of accommodations. However, given the fact that Charlie is in the category of high-performance weirdos who make significant contributions to the organization, it would probably behoove you to find a way to give a little on this one. On the Behavioral Change Map, the cost-benefit is pretty clear.

At one end of the spectrum, in a pure pay-for-performance organization that can clearly measure results, one would find it very easy to accommodate Charlie, regardless of the hours. For example, sales people on a straight commission might work very different hours and days, and even locations, but as long as they are selling, the company is happy and the employee is happy. No sales, no pay! Lots of sales, lots of pay! Sleep anytime you want to!

Short of that, another option would be to reconsider Charlie's employment status, and to consider making him an independent contractor, which would allow him to work whenever and wherever he wants, as long as he meets the objective(s) in his contract. There are plusses and minuses to both parties in this situation, which would need to be discussed and agreed upon, such as eligibility for benefits, tax implications, etc.

Finally, flextime might be an option, but with a twist. Most flextime programs assume certain "core" hours, and that the employee's hours, whenever they are, are spent on the employer's premises. But given Charlie's needs, a hybrid between flextime and telecommuting might fit the bill better. One of the real challenges with Charlie's situation is that he may not be able to tell you which days of the week he will be "creating" at 3 a.m., so trust is obviously a big issue. But again, with his track record, and with expected results clearly identified, it need not be an issue.

And as far as the potential impact on others, unless and until they produce as much as Charlie does, they can just get over it. That's life in a high-performance organization.