The Work-Life Movement and its Place at URI- Part 1

Commentary

Barbara Silver, Ph.D.

Assistant Research Professor

Research Coordinator
Noel Burgess
MS Candidate,
Labor Relations & Human Resources

Part 1. What Workers Need Today: Addressing the Workplace-Workforce Mismatch

Demographic shifts have re-shaped the American workforce. Increasingly, the intersection of work, family, and life responsibilities provides challenges for the majority of workers. Workplaces across the country are responding. This series will cover: Part 1. What Workers Need Today: Addressing the Workplace-Workforce Mismatch; Part 2. Work-Life Initiatives Across the Country and Here at URI; and Part 3. Workplace Flexibility Close-Up: How One URI Office is Making it Work

This Ain’t Your Daddy’s Workforce

The workforce is looking dramatically different than it did a few decades ago, and today, the intersection of work, family, and life responsibilities provides challenges for the majority of workers. First, the workforce is nearly gender balanced: women comprise 49% of the workforce, and this includes 72% of mothers with children under the age of 18.¹ Fully 80% of married/partnered employees live in dual-earner couples, outnumbering breadwinner/homemaker households 3-to-1.² Second, it is older. By 2015, 20% of the workforce will be over 55, and between 2006-2016 labor force participation by workers 65 and over will increase a staggering 85%.³ Third, it is more ethnically diverse. From 1980 to 2020, the white working-age population is projected to decline from 82% to 63%, but during the same period, the minority portion of the workforce is projected to double, from 18% to 37%.⁴ Fourth, it is working harder. In 2006, middle-income families worked an average of 11 hours more per week than they did in 1979.⁵ Men are contributing more to household and care giving responsibilities than in the past, and women less, but women are still doing more than men. Today, 59% of those caring for an elderly parent or friend are simultaneously managing work and care giving responsibilities. The number of unpaid caregivers for the elderly is estimated to reach 37 million by 2050, an increase of 85% from 2000, as baby boomers reach retirement age in record numbers.⁶ Elder care is expected to be one of the most important issues facing American families in the coming decades.

In short, this literally ain’t your daddy’s workforce, one that defined the time when traditional workplace policies and practices were created. Rigid workplace policies are still largely designed to meet the needs of a 1960s traditional breadwinner-caretaker family model, in which the ideal worker is someone (typically male) whose family or personal responsibilities do not interfere with work expectations or job performance. The mismatch between this traditional workplace and a workforce that is older, more diverse, technologically savvy, and in which the majority of workers have (or will have) some care giving responsibilities, calls for a paradigm shift in how we define when and how work gets done.

Workplace Flexibility –  A Must

Fully 90% of employed mothers and 95% of employed fathers now report some kind of work-life conflict.⁷ Workplace flexibility ranks among the top 2 or 3 most important job characteristics to employees, just behind compensation. In one poll, nearly 80% of employees said they would use and benefit from more flexible work options if there were no negative consequences at work.⁸ Employees report that the ability to balance work and home significantly impact their career choices and influence their decisions to accept a position or to remain in one.⁹

Researchers and progressive businesses and organizations recognize that attending to the work-life challenges today’s workers face, including providing flexible working options, has become a business imperative and improves an organization’s bottom line. It is shown compellingly time and again that flexibility is an economic driver, increasing productivity, retention, job satisfaction, engagement and commitment, and improved physical and mental health.^10a,b,c For example, businesses like Best Buy, Dow Chemical, IBM, American Experess, Sun Microsystems, to name only a few, report increases in productivity between 32 and 50% with telecommuting programs.¹¹ Concurrently, it results in lower operational costs and a greener workplace, as well as less stress, absenteeism, presenteeism, and turnover.^12a,b In short, there are robust findings that support the many positive human capital and business outcomes that result from embracing a work-life integration agenda, and providing flexibility options to employees.

It is crucial to recognize that workplace flexibility and work-life integration efforts serve two parallel goals. They serve economic goals, producing significant positive business impacts and serving as powerful recruitment and retention tools. However, they also serve important equity goals. Traditional, rigid workplace practices disadvantage, among others, care givers (the majority of whom are still women), older workers, and lower wage workers. Indeed, it is the lower wage family that arguably has the most severe challenges meeting competing work and home demands, and the ones who often have the least access to flexible work options. As Joan Williams, noted work-life legal scholar has written, these are the workers who are “one sick child away from being fired.”¹³

Supervisory Support is Key

There are several perceived drawbacks to providing flexible work options, all of which have been effectively disproven. These include cost, fear of abuse of policies, loss of productivity and absenteeism, difficulty in supervising employees, and others.^14a,b Partly because of these perceived drawbacks, maintaining a traditional organizational culture and resistance to change on the part of supervisors and organizations presents perhaps the most challenging obstacle to promoting a flexible workplace. Even where policies may exist, in many workplaces they may be not well publicized or encouraged, producing a disconnect between policy and practices, or an "implementation gap."¹⁵ And, along with managers, employees are also often resistant, fearing negative repercussions from using available leave policies. Indeed, the Families and Work Institute’s 2002 National Study of the Changing Workforce revealed that fully 39% of employees surveyed perceive the use of flexible work options as having a negative impact on their job advancement.¹⁶  In one recent national poll from Workplace Options, a national work-life services provider, more than two-thirds of working fathers have experienced negativity or problems with their current employer due to conflicts between their job and duties as a caregiver.¹⁷

While it may be challenging, manager resistance, employee skepticism, and cultural resistance to changing the old industrial work model can be overcome. A better understanding of the issues and the strength of the business case for flexibility, supervisory training in best practices, performance-based management strategies (rather than a reliance on “face-time”), and open, consistent communication between supervisors and employees will go a long way toward overcoming these obstacles. There are scores of ways work-life initiatives, policies, and practices can be implemented. Thinking creatively and tailoring options to meet the varying needs and job requirements of different categories of workers takes careful planning, but reaps rewards. There are many, many solutions, and they need not be cumbersome or costly. Employers must think flexibly about flexibility.

References

1   U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Current Population Survey, 2007. Retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook2008.htm

2    US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Labor Force Characteristics by Race & Ethnicity, 2010. Report 1032, August 2011. Retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsrace2010.pdf

3    US Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Spotlight on Statistics: Older Workers. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2008/older_workers/

4   National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, Policy Alert, November 2005: http://www.highereducation.org/reports/pa_decline/decline-f1.shtml

5   Mishel, L., Bernstein, J. & Shierholz, H. (2009). The State of Working America 2008/2009. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

6   Georgetown University Law Center, Workplace Flexibility 2010. Older Workers and the need for workplace flexibility fact sheet. Retrieved from: http://workplaceflexibility2010.org/images/uploads/WF2010_Older_JAZZY_COLOR.pdf

7   Williams, J. & Boushey, H. (2010). The three faces of work-family conflict: The poor, the professionals, and the missing middle. Center for American Progress and Center for WorkLife Law. Retrieved from: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/three_faces_report.html

8   Galinsky, E., Bond, J.t., & Hill, E.J. (2004). Workplace flexibility: What is it? Who has it? Who wants it? Does it make a difference? New York: Families & Work Institute

9   Corporate Voices for Working Families (2005, November). Business impacts of flexibility: An imperative for expansion. Washington, D.C.

10a Corporate Voices for Working Families (2005, November). Business impacts of flexibility: An imperative for expansion. Washington, D.C.

10b Galinsky, e. Bond, J.T., & Hill, E.J. (2004). Bottom-line benefits of work/life programs.   HR Focus (July):3-4.

10c Pitt-Catsouphes, M., Matz-Costa, C., & Besen, E. (2009). Workplace flexibility: Findings from the age and generations study. Sloan Center on Aging & Work at Boston College.

11  Lister, K., & Harnish, T. (2010b). Workshifting benefits: The bottom line. TeleworkResearchNetwork.com

12a ibid.

12b Halpern, D.F. (2005, May). How time-flexible work policies can reduce stress, improve health, and save money. Stress and Health. Retrieved from: http://berger.claremontmckenna.edu/Publications/Papers?Stress/Health.pdf

13  Williams, J. (2010). Reshaping the Work-Life Debate: Why Men and Class Matter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

14a Bond, J.T., Galinsky,E., Kim, S.S., & Brownfield, E. (2005). National study of employers. Families and Work Institute. Retrieved from: http://familiesandwork.org/site/research/reports/2005nse.pdf

14b McNamara, T., Wong, M., Brown, M. & Pitt-Catsouphes, M. (2009). States as employers-of -choice. A collaborative project of the Twiga Foundation, Inc. and the Sloan Center on Aging & Work. Retrieved from: http://familiesandwork.org/site/research/reports/2005nse.pdf.

15  Lewis, S. & Haas, L. (2005). Work-life integration and social policy. In Kossek, E. & Lambert, S. (Eds.): Work and Life Integration. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

16 Bond, J., Thompson, C., Galinsky, E. & Prottas, D. (2003). Highlights of the national study of the changing workforce. New York: Families & Work Institute.

17 Workplace Options (2011). Demands of changing workforce ramp up pressure on working dads. Retrieved from: http://www.workplaceoptions.com/news/press-releases/press-release.asp?id=F9FDCE88426C49F99605&title =Demands%20of%20Changing%20Workforce%20Ramp%20up%20Pressure%20on%20Working%20Dads

The Nexus of Supervisor Abuse, Employee Entitlement, and Coworker Abuse: It Is not Pretty

Commentary

by Professor Tony Wheeler
Associate Professor of Human Resource Management

Over the past 2 or 3 years I’ve been fortunate to speak to several professional groups about workforce development issues.  The first of the Boomer generation, born between 1946 and 1964, reached official Social Security retirement age about 2 years ago, signalling the start of a massive demographic shift in the U.S. workforce.  The Boomer Generation comprises roughly 37% of the U.S. workforce, with Generation X (born between 1965 and 1975) and Generation Y (born between 1976 and 1994) contributing 22% and 38% to the workforce, respectively (MTC Institute: The Workforce of 2010). While I am old enough to recall the halcyon days of Boomers lamenting my generation (X) as being “slackers”, I can happily report to you that my generation appears to concur with Boomers about these Generation Y kids: We shake out collective fists at them.

At all of these meetings all anyone wants to talk about is how to manage Generation Y employees.  The single word I hear again and again to describe Generation Y is “entitled”. These people think they deserve benefits from things for which they have not worked to earn. At least that’s what we think as we shake our fists at them. The study of entitlement, more properly termed ‘psychological entitlement’ in the academic literature, has increased over the past 5 years.  Given that Generation Y employees comprise the largest percent of our workforce and have this reputation as being entitled, we should more closely examine entitlement in the workplace.  How do entitled employees perceive the workplace?  How do they behave in response to organizational cultures, processes, and practices? How do they behave toward coworkers?

As I wrote about almost a year ago, I have a research interest in workplace bullying.  I have continued this line of research to examine a specific aspect of workplace bullying: abusive supervision.  Abusive supervision is a perception an employee has about how the boss treats subordinates.  We are not talking about physical abuse here but verbal or mental abuse.  Again, a perception of abuse. Somewhere between 15 to 20% of the U.S. workforce reports the perception of being abused by supervisors, so this is quite a robust phenomenon.

Two colleagues of mine and I had a simple operating hypothesis.  We thought that employees who scored highly on a psychological entitlement measure would not respond well do abusive supervision.  When you think you are entitled to anything and everything, you likely perceive any non-favorable feedback from your supervisor as being abusive.  After all, you are entitled to only positive feedback!

How would entitled employees respond to this perceived abuse?  We thought it would create stress.  Again, when you feel entitled to anything and everything and do not get it, you will feel a bit whacked out.  In turn, how would entitled employees react to this stress?  Like a good entitled person should react: by acting out at those closest to them.  Doesn’t this happen all the time?  (Although you might call it a temper tantrum or displaced anger)  And who in the workplace is closest to an entitled employee?  Their coworkers.

We daily surveyed hundreds of pairs of employees from multiple industries over a 5 day period, and we found exactly what we hypothesized.  Psychologically entitled employees perceive higher levels of abusive supervision compared to less entitled employees, and this abuse increases the emotional exhaustion of the entitled employees, who then engage in abusive behavior toward their coworkers. This pattern creates a hostile environment, the kind in which performance will likely suffer, escalations of abuse will increase, and turnover likely ensues.  In other words, this will cost your company money and make life miserable for all involved.

So what to do?  Can you use pre-hire tests to weed out entitled employees?  Probably not.  How is entitlement job related or predictive of performance?  I recommend clear and strong anti-bullying and abuse policies that your company implements in a zero tolerance manner.  You need to establish a culture where this type of behavior is immediately addressed.  If not, by ignoring the abuse you tacitly endorse it, which only serves to increase it.  This goes for supervisors and employees.  What if your managers are abusive?  Do you condone that behavior and all of its ill effects? Is that the culture you want to promote?  In the end, I simply refer you to one of my favorite books on how to deal with disruptive or abusive employees; The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't.  Employees will follow the rules, even entitled employees will, if your company enforces the rules.

Building a Better Workplace

Commentary

Barbara Silver, Ph.D.

Assistant Research Professor

Research Coordinator
Vanessa Armstrong
MS Candidate,
Labor Relations & Human Resources

The Work-Life Movement

The contemporary American workplace is evolving far from its 20th century roots, during which the ideal worker was characterized as someone unfailingly committed and available to his job, and who did not allow personal or family responsibilities to interfere with his job performance. Today, this breadwinner-caretaker model has been replaced, as women and men are now represented equally in the workplace, as dual-earner couples become the norm, and as the workforce ages and becomes more culturally diverse. Research shows that employees are working longer hours than ever before and are increasingly strained as their role demands become more intense and multi-faceted. Implementing flexible work options that allow workers to work effectively but creatively as they juggle myriad responsibilities has become a central feature of the proactive 21st century workplace. The list includes teleworking, paid family leave, child and elder care assistance, part-time options, full-time modified duties, sick banks, shift bidding, phased retirement, compressed work weeks, job sharing, and many others.

There are currently many national initiatives aimed at educating employers and the public about the need to be more caring and responsive to these conditions. For example, both houses of Congress have passed bills aimed at enforcing federal telework (working remotely) mandates, and the current administration's proposed 2011 budget requires a 50% increase in teleworking for federal employees (Lister & Harnish, 2010b). In March 2010, the White House brought national attention to this issue by sponsoring a Conference on Workplace Flexibility, and many federal initiatives are in place and being developed in recognition of the vital importance of these strategies to the modern workplace.

Trends in Academia

Over the past decade, colleges and universities across the country have begun to catch up to the corporate sector in their recognition that our changing demographics and the changing ways we work and study require changes in workplace policies and practices. In order to maintain a competitive edge in recruitment, retention, and engagement, of faculty, staff, and students, higher education is making strides toward providing flexibility options, child and elder care services, paid leave, and other work-life balance options. The College and University Work/Family Association has been a leader in providing work-life information and services specifically to the higher education community.

The World at Work report, Workplace Flexibility: Innovation in Action (2008), notes that the workplace flexibility challenges in higher education differ from other workplace settings in that higher education institutions have to accommodate widely differing positions, including faculty - tenured, on a tenure track, or not on a tenure track – as well as a wide variety of staff positions. Because of the nature of faculty work, they generally have greater control over when and where their work is accomplished, and thus have greater flexibility than many staff positions. When asked what flexibility options were of most value to faculty, the option of having dedicated time to focus on research with no teaching obligations was of high value for associate (65%) and full (73%) women professors (World at Work, 2008). This option was also the most highly valued among faculty in general (55%) as opposed to flex-time and part-time options. Among staff members, the most valued flexible work option (59%) was the flexibility in one's schedule to allow for taking courses. For women staff members in higher education, the most valued flexible work option (63%) was flex time or flexible hours. (World at Work, 2008)

Many educational institutions have begun to implement innovative flexible work options. According to the American Association of University Professors, the "practices reported to have the greatest potential benefit to faculty included stopping of the tenure clock, modified duties, paid maternity leave, paid dependent-care leave, and the existence of units or personnel dedicated to work-family issues" (World at Work, 2008: 13). Another example of a flexible work option is Ohio State University's policy of "providing 100 percent compensation for up to two quarters of faculty professional leave" (2008: 38). After the University of Washington implemented a program called "Parental Teaching Release for Parent/Child Bonding," faculty taking part in the program reported higher satisfaction with the flexibility available. The University of Washington also pays for replacement instruction for faculty members taking leave. Other examples of work-life options at universities include tenure-clock flexibility, making funds available for faculty to hire post-docs when the faculty member is on leave, dissemination of best practices of family friendly accommodations to all system schools in a state, and offering a career database that allows for cost-benefit analysis of the flexible options offered to faculty. (World at Work, 2008).

Benefits of Providing Work-Life Balance Options

The benefits of providing workplace flexibility have by now been well documented and are bi-directional. We know that workplaces that foster flexibility and an atmosphere of trust, respect, and responsiveness to workers' needs are also characterized by several positive outcomes to both employee and organization, including increased organizational citizenship behaviors, worker satisfaction, commitment, productivity, retention and engagement, increased physical and mental health, and reduced absenteeism, stress, and attrition. (Kossek & Hammer, 2008; Pitt-Catsouphes & Matz-Costa, 2008).

Many companies today are reporting the effectiveness on recruitment offering flexible work arrangements is having (Corporate Voices for Working Families, 2005). According to the World at Work report (2008), "95 percent of employees in the United States say that availability of flexible work arrangements is a critical factor in taking a job" (2008: 31). As well, employees working in an organization with high flexibility were more likely to remain with their employers than those in organizations with lower levels of flexibility, and reported higher levels of job satisfaction. According to the Sloan Center Age & Generations Study, for all age groups of employees studied, a majority "reported that having access to flexible work options contributes to their overall quality of life 'to a great extent'" (Pitt-Catsouphes, Matz-Costa, & Besen, 2009: 2).

While the effects of workplace flexibility are clear amongst higher wage workers, "flexibility has powerful impacts on lower wage workers in terms of engagement, turnover, and financial results" (Corporate Voices for Working Families, 2006:15). When lower wage workers were offered flexible work options, the results included higher retention, higher profits, lower rates of absenteeism, and increased productivity. While different strategies may be required for different categories of employees, creative solutions can be found for everyone.

Barriers to Flexibility

Cost

While the business case for providing a flexible workplace has been convincingly made, many institutions have been slow to recognize this important relationship, or recognize it but are still reluctant to introduce flexibility initiatives. A National Study of Employers survey found that cost was cited as the number one obstacle for implementing flexible work options (46% of respondents). However, research also indicates that administrators agree overwhelmingly that flexible work strategies have a positive effect on helping organizations meet business objectives (Corporate Voices, 2007). An expanding body of research provides solid evidence that the return on investments in flexible work options is high, in terms of productivity, engagement, loyalty, retention, and job satisfaction. It is estimated, for example, that allowing employees to telework, or work remotely (also called workshifting) half time could save employers over $10,000 per employee per year as a result of increased productivity, reduced facility costs, lowered absenteeism, and reduced turnover (Lister & Harnish, 2010b).

In addition, there are many, many creative solutions to provide employees the flexibility they need that require few or no additional resources.

Fear of Abuse

A regularly cited reason for not implementing flexible work options is the fear that employees will take advantage of the flexibility offered. Lister and Harnish (2010a) note that "management styles that were born in the days of sweatshops and typing pools are still pervasive in business today." However, this attitude reflects a traditional top-down, control-oriented management model, one whose values contradict workplace flexibility and a corresponding ethic that includes trust, worker independence, and creative, agile solutions. Regardless of workplace policies, there will always be some abuse by some employees. Using management strategies that cater to this minority, or the "lowest common denominator," does not serve an organization or its employees well. Effective management is a better strategy. Indeed, it is found repeatedly today that employees with more flexibility options are more willing to work harder than is required, are more loyal, and are more committed to their employer (Families & Work Institute, 2002).

Loss of Productivity & Absenteeism

Supervisors sometimes assume that offering flexibility results in employees not working as hard, thus decreasing organizational productivity. In fact, the opposite has been found time and again: flexibility increases productivity. A Center for Work & Family study (2000) found that 87% of employees and 70% of managers reported that flexible work arrangements had a positive or very positive impact on productivity. BestBuy's flexible Results Only Work Environment (ROWE) has netted an average productivity increase of 35% and Dow Chemical estimates a 32.5% productivity increase in its teleworkers (Lister & Harnish, 2010b). It has been found that even with a small amount of flexibility, employees have higher levels of engagement, stronger commitment to their jobs, greater job satisfaction, and lower stress levels (Corporate Voices for Working Families, 2005). In fact, a study of over 1,300 hourly workers across 5 companies found that employee engagement was 55% higher for those employees who have flexibility options (World at Work, 2009).

Workers in organizations without the flexibility to "presenteeism," has become a far worse culprit in loss of productivity than absenteeism, costing US employers between $150 to $250 billion annually (Schaeffer, 2007). In fact, it is estimated that 78% of employees who call in sick really are not. Instead, they do so because of family needs, personal reasons, or stress.

Concerns About Equity and Employee Resentment

Another reason employers may be reluctant to introduce flexibility initiatives is the difficulty in offering the same accommodations to all employees. Certainly in higher education, many different categories of employees exist who perform their work in different ways and under different parameters. However, "flexibility fit" is the important factor: while what works for one employee might not work for another, alternative solutions can be found that help all employees balance their work and personal lives. Offering an array of options is only valuable if those options fit the needs of employees (Pitt-Catsouphes, Matz-Costa, & Besen, 2009). What is important is that the accommodation process be same, even though the choices offered and outcomes may vary.

If anything, offering flexible work options that fit the needs of different employees serves the goals of equity, rather than the reverse. Women workers, who still shoulder the majority of household and caretaking responsibilities, experience much greater levels of stress, burnout, and slower career trajectories due to these compounded demands. Especially in arenas where they are underrepresented, such as the science and engineering disciplines, women's path up the career ladder is easily sabotaged by unrealistic expectations to do it all (Valian, 1998; Williams, 2000). As well, lower wage workers are much more likely to be restricted in their ability to have some control over their work time, due to the nature of many of their jobs, accompanied by a prevailing attitude among managers about maintaining control over work processes and schedules (Corporate Voices for Working Families, 2006).

Lack of Supervisory Support

Maintaining a traditional organizational culture and resistance to change on the part of supervisors and organizations presents perhaps the most challenging obstacle to promoting a flexible workplace. Even where policies may exist, in many workplaces "there is a distinct disconnect between policy and practices, what is known as "the implementation gap". Much has been written concerning implementation barriers (Center for Work and Family, 2008; Hammer, et al, 2007; Mason, et al, 2004; Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2004; World at Work, 2008). And, along with managers, employees are also often resistant. Drago and colleagues (Drago, 2007) have written extensively on the "bias avoidance" phenomenon, whereby employees fear negative repercussions from using available leave policies. Indeed, the Families and Work Institute's 2002 National Study of the Changing Workforce revealed that fully 39% of employees surveyed perceive the use of flexible work options as having a negative impact on their job advancement (Families and Work Institute, 2002).

While it may be challenging, manager resistance, employee skepticism, and cultural resistance to changing the old industrial work model can be overcome. A better understanding the issues and the strength of the business case for flexibility, supervisory training in best practices, performance-based management strategies, and open, consistent communication between supervisors and employees will go a long way toward overcoming these obstacles.

References

Bond, J.T., Thompson,C., Galinsky, & Prottas, D. (2002). Highlights of the national study of the changing workforce: Executive summary. Families & Work Institute. http://familiesandwork.org/site/research/summary/nscw2002summ.pdf

Center for Work & Family (2000). Measuring the impact of workplace flexbility: Findings from the national work life measurement project. Boston College, Boston, MA: http://www.bc.edu/centers/cwf/research/publications/meta-elements/pdf/BCCWF_Flex_Impact_Final_Report.pdf

Center for Work & Family (2008). Overcoming the implementation gap: How 20 leading companies are making flexibility work. Boston College, Boston, MA: http://www.bc.edu/centers/cwf/meta-elements/pdf/Flex_ExecutiveSummary_for_web.pdf

Corporate Voices for Working Families (2005). Business impacts of flexibility: An imperative for expansion. Washington, DC. http://www.cvworkingfamilies.org/system/files/Business%20Impacts%20of%20Flexibility.pdf

Corporate Voices for Working Families (2006). Workplace flexibility for lower wage workers, Washington, DC. http://www.cvworkingfamilies.org/publication-toolkits/workplace-flexibility-lower-wage-workers-october-2006
Corporate Voices for Working Families (2007). Flexible work strategies: Attitudes & experiences - Executive Summary. Washington, DC. http://corporatevoices.org/system/files/flexibleworkstrategiessummary_for%20web.pdf

Drago, Robert (2007). Striking a balance: Work, family, life. Boston, MA: Economic Affairs Bureau, Inc.

Hammer, L.B., Kossek, E.E., Zimmerman, K, & Daniels, R. (2007). Clarifying the construct of family-supportive supervisory behaviors (FSSB): A multilevel perspective. In Perrewe, P.L. & Ganster, D.C (Eds) Exploring the Work and Non-Work Interface. New York: Elsevier, JAI Press.

Kossek, E.E. & Hammer, L.B. (2008). Family supportive supervisory behaviors (FSSB) intervention study: Effects oon employee's work, family, safety, & health outcomes. National Work, Family, & Health Network: Center of work-Family Stress, Safety, and Health. http://wjsupport.psy.pdx.edu/

Lister, K., & Harnish, T. (2010a). Results based management: The key to unlocking talent, increasing productivity. Telework Research Network: http://img.en25.com/Web/CitrixOnline/Increasing_Productivity%20.pdf

Lister, K., & Harnish, T. (2010b). Workshifting benefits: the bottom line. Telework Research Network: TeleworkResearchNetwork.com

Mason, M.A. and Goulden, Marc (2004) Do babies matter (Part II): Closing the baby gap. Academe, November-December.
Pink, D. (2009). The surprising truth about what motivates us. Penguin Group.

Pitt-Catsouphes, M. & Matz-Costa, C. (2008). The multi-generational workforce: Workplace flexibility and engagement. Community, Work & Family, 11(2), 215-229.

Pitt-Catsouphes, M., Matz-Costa, C., & Besen, E. (2009). Workplace flexibility: Findings from the age & generations study. Issue Brief, The Sloan Center on Aging &Work, 1-21.

Schaefer, P. (2007) The hidden cost of presenteeism: Causes and solutions. Business Knowhow. Attard Communications, Inc. http://www.businessknowhow.com/manage/presenteeism.htm

Valian, Virginia (1998) Why so slow: The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.

Williams, Joan (2000) Unbending gender: Why family and work conflict and what to do about it. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Ward, K., & Wolf-Wendel, L. (2004). Fear factor: How safe is it to make time for family. Academe, November-December.

World at Work (2008). Workplace flexibility: Innovation in action. WorldatWork Press. http://www.worldatwork.org/waw/adimLink?id=26715&from=book_search_worklife

World at Work (2009). Innovative worrkplace flexibility options for hourly workers. http://www.cvworkingfamilies.org/system/files/CVWFflexreport-FINAL.pdf

Nobel Prize in Economics: 2010

Commentary

by Professor Richard McIntyre, Ph.D.

Professor of Economics

Diamond, Mortenson and Pissariades were awarded the Nobel prize in Economics this year for “search theory.” This work was part of the increased interest in the costs of information in the 1970s. It was also one of a number of approaches that shifted attention from the demand to the supply side of the labor market at that time. Search theory has applications to housing and public economics but I will confine my comments here to the labor market implications of search theory.

The idea that workers and jobs are heterogeneous and that it takes time and effort to match them is useful for both policy and theory. Sweden’s “active labor market policy” sought to reduce frictional unemployment even before the now classic papers on search theory were published. Perhaps this is why the Swedish Central Bank made this award, although speculation about the reasoning behind these awards is not terribly productive in my opinion.

One interpretation of search is that it explains the persistence of high unemployment rates. In the New York Times article announcing the award Robert Shimer, an economist at the University of Chicago, was quoted as saying that “That’s a big controversy in the U.S. recently. Most of these models suggest that even in a depressed economy, more generous unemployment benefits tend to raise the unemployment rate. Benefits are obviously good for the unemployed, but there are some clear tradeoffs.”

Standard labor market models assume that workers make choices whether to work or not based on their reservation wage and the level of unemployment benefits. But in the current situation, there are so few jobs available that workers are more likely to drop out of the labor market than to be re-employed. Those who have maintained employment are more likely to be involuntarily working part time because of slack demand. So far this is the weakest recovery since World War II. In other words the high rate of unemployment is overwhelmingly due to slack demand rather than longer search periods caused by extended unemployment benefits. Since only about 40 percent of the unemployed generally receive benefits, while there may be anecdotes about people remaining unemployed so as to collect benefits, this is a minor part of the current labor market story.
There is an older view associated with Frances Perkins and other architects of the New Deal in which unemployment and low wages lead to more unemployment. As people lose their jobs and/or wages fell, more people in the family had to seek work, thus increasing the excess supply of workers relative to available jobs. By this logic larger/longer unemployment insurance lowers unemployment by reducing the number of people who have to go job-hunting when employment opportunities are scarce.

Unemployment in Europe has generally been higher than in the US over the last two decades and some economists try to use search theory to explain this. Here is Lawrence Katz of Harvard from the same Times article: “Many European countries put restrictions on the ability of firms to hire and fire. If you make it harder to hire and fire, then you end up with what’s called a sclerotic labor market, with less movement between jobs and more long-term unemployment.”
There is a basic empirical problem here also. European labor markets were much more rigid in the 1960s and 70s than they are today, and yet unemployment rates at that time were significantly lower in Europe than in the United States.

Reactionary attempts to build on this year’s Nobel then are strained at best. The winners of this year’s prize do not draw these kinds of conclusions. Diamond has argued that current labor market problems are primarily due to lack of aggregate demand and that loss of skills by those who have dropped out of the labor market is a bigger problem than the disincentive effects of unemployment compensation. Mortenson has said that credit market and not labor market problems are the real issue that we face.

These divergent conclusions point to both a strength and weakness of orthodox economics. The scientific apparatus of contemporary economics can be used to justify a wide range of policies. But that very range causes people to question the scientific nature of economics itself.  
More important is what search theorists don’t do. As Marx and others have pointed out, it is in the labor process, not the labor exchange that exploitation occurs. And here employers clearly have the upper hand. Further, many labor market and labor process outcomes – employment, remuneration, working conditions, training – reflect what employers choose to do, except perhaps during short-lived moments of full employment. Since the 1970s, in the US at least, the rhetoric of labor economics has been mainly about workers rather than employers, and mostly focused on what workers should do to make their labor time more salable. At best search theory tells us that people are doing something useful while they are unemployed. But for the most part it distracts us from that fact that employers have the upper hand in the labor market and that there is no such thing as democracy inside the firm, where Americans spend most of their waking time.

Labor Arbitration Conference - 2010

Contributions from:

Vanessa Armstrong, MS ‘11

Adeyemi Ogunade, MS ‘11

Sarah Soares, MS ‘12

On October 1,  2010, the SLRC hosted its 11th Annual Labor Arbitration Conference at the Marriott Hotel in Newport, RI. Attendance at this year’s conference was higher than our previous high set last year. There were 157 attendees including SLRC students Vanessa Armstrong, Alexis Lyman, Bill Maccarone, Yemi Ogunade and Sarah Soares

Professor Mark Grossman assembled an excellent group of speakers who addressed a number of important issues in the field of arbitration.

Tough Times Call for Tough Negotiations and Arbitrations

Mark Gursky, Jeffrey W. Kastle & Paul C. Reed

---

In the wake of the recent economic meltdown the response of employers both, in the private and public sectors of the economy, is to tighten budgets while at the same  time shed recurrent expenditure which in most cases boils down to personnel cuts. Mark Gursky emphasized the ironic condition of public sectors workers where in one breath they are told by top public officers about huge budget constraints leading to salary freezes  and on the other hand witness these officials receive huge compensation packages with benefits running into hundreds of thousands. The economic climate has encouraged employers to increasing use tactics like concession bargaining and judicial authority to overturn contractual obligations agreed upon in the CBA and ultimately impinge upon the fidelity of the arbitration process. It is not unheard of to see employers file chapter 11 and reorganize as a strategy to void CBA and thus avoid costs in terms of increased wage bill. In his recommendations to unions Mr. Gursky opined that unions should not only seek redress in Federal courts of law with more pro-union precedent but also seek to rebuild alliances with the grassroots and develop a political power base to change state legislation in their favor.

Other panelists affirmed the undeniable realities of the depression and proposed mid-term bargaining between union and employers to properly address and seek creative solutions to the new economic verities. Jeffrey Kastle was of the opinion that unions ought to be more open to the idea of mid-term bargaining and making concessions that would in the long term enhance labor relations. With interest-based arbitration used to resolve any niggling concerns that arises between both parties during mid-term bargaining.

Managing and Defending Difficult Employees

Sue Ellen Dunn & Gerard E, O'Neill

---

Managing and defending difficult employees is a delicate balance for the employer and the union. Sue Ellen Dunn focused on how the employer can mitigate risk, build relationships and make the right decision for all parties involved. When issues with difficult employees arise the focus must first be placed on areas including job performance, attendance and conduct in the workplace, this is the primary fact finding that must be conducted. As the employer you should know the job duties and any special requirements. Open communication with the employee and the union is essential because, depending on the situation, the union can be an ally because avoiding arbitration may be the ultimate goal, the employer may still find itself in arbitration despite best efforts.

There may be an actual valid excuse for misconduct including an employee that is bi-polar or has ADHD. In this case the employer should consider EAP but should not make it mandatory and only use EAP if it is appropriate (more serious cases). If EAP is mandatory the EAP should report back to the employer as to the employees’ progress. When issues may be in the context of the ADA the process should be flexible and interactive. The employee and employer should make reasonable proposals for accommodation to do essential functions of the job keeping in mind to be careful to ensure the law is followed, it should not  be just about the employee wanting to do another job.

When dealing with physicians, ask the physicians what you can do as an employer. Fitness for duty should not be an employee choice, employers should require the evaluation at no cost to the employee,  and the employer should inform the physician the job duties and any problems. The physician will give you an expert independent decision and make recommendations what to do next. 

Gerard E. O’Neill focused on several considerations when dealing with employees who may be slightly unbalanced, the competency, liability, or a threat. He recommended that a union official is always be present and the fact that the employee may need a friend or relative to assist with the process. Difficulties arise when clients don’t tell the truth where he recommended jettison if possible and asking for records before moving forward. In multiple discipline clients and multiple attorney clients it is more difficult to win. Conflicting claims, poor behavior and poor record keeping are all red flags when trying for a win for the client.  

Looking Over Your Shoulder: Surveillance in Employee’s Vehicles, Computers and Other Intimate Places

Susan R. Brown &  Bonnie J. McSpiritt

---

With the prevalence of employee monitoring in labor management, many issues arise when arbitrating matters of surveillance. The presenters outlined reasons for surveillance, two being routine and suspicion-based surveillance. Routine surveillance, which may be necessary for safety purposes or performance oversight, is conducted in the course of doing business and is applied to everyone in a given category. Routine monitoring can be used in the pursuit of suspicion-based surveillance. The speakers explored many methods of surveillance, including time clocks, human observers, global positioning systems, cell phones, computer monitoring, identification badges, video surveillance, and radio frequency identification.

The presenters made several precautions for employers regarding the use of surveillance. It was suggested that employers ensure their surveillance policies reflect what they aim to accomplish. In writing policy, the language should be tailored to the specific workplace, stating both the types of surveillance that might be conducted, and areas which might be excluded from surveillance. When addressing surveillance in the workplace, an employer should consider whether it is covered by the National Labor Relations Act as well as what state laws say about audio surveillance and privacy. When presenting surveillance evidence before a neutral arbitrator, it is important not to assume that what is seen in the evidence, such as a videotape, is evident to an outsider. Before using such surveillance evidence, evaluate the evidence objectively to determine if there is a viable case for the arbitrator.

Ways to Expedite the Arbitration Hearing and Also Make it Less Expensive
       Matthew M. Bodah & Joan Dolan   

---

With ever increasing costs of arbitration hearings and the increased amount of time it takes to resolve a grievance it becomes imperative arbitrators seek ways to help check this growing trend. Time and money can be saved by properly administering the pre-hearing phase of an arbitration, scheduling of the actual arbitration and during the course of the actual hearing. Prof. Bodah proposed measures to help expedite arbitration in the pre-hearing phase. He suggested the proper definition of the meaning of a grievance within a contract, with both parties actually negotiating and agreeing on a definition that is neither too broad or narrow. Other suggestions in the pre-hearing phase include ensuring a grievances are written down as soon as possible,ensuring contracts have appropriate time limits for grievances  and proper training for union stewards and HR representatives in proper investigatory procedures prior to arbitration. Here a possible method proposed is the mandatory joint fact finding committee of both union and management that would help in articulation of the issue and agreement on the facts of the case prior to the arbitration hearing which significantly reduces time wasted on arguing facts during hearings.

Other suggestions  include proper appraisal of grievance to ensure scheduling of appropriate time to hear and arbitrate case and thus avoid dragging out the arbitration process due to scheduling constraints with the arbitrator. Efficient scheduling saves time and money. Using the cheapest labor possible for non-essential tasks like transcribing e.t.c , to avoid wasting arbitrators time on mundane tasks and ensure optimal time is spent on making the decision regarding the case. Finally arbitrators could encourage and facilitate voluntary discourse between both parties to help communication, which helps expedite pending issues.

Violence in the Workplace: Dissecting the Termination Case:

Thomas R. Landry & George H. Rinaldi

---

The session was opened with the OSHA definition of workplace violence as violence or the threat of violence against workers. The panel them surprised the audience with the fact that homicide was the fourth leading cause of workplace deaths. Employers concerns with workplace violence were covered first including concerns with reputation, law suits, control issues, and issues that could roll into Title 7. The union concerns were member to member issues and the fact that zero tolerance does not equal immediate termination. With those concerns in mind the panel reviewed whether or not employer should have a workplace violence policy and if a policy exists to what depth should it cover. A simple policy may not cover enough and leave too much room to interpretation and a strict policy of zero tolerance can lead to issues in enforcing the policy. The panel discussed disciplinary factors and defenses including considerations of the level of violence, who the target is, the location, and any prior disciplinary record. Defenses included self defense, horseplay (threat vs. shop talk), cultural sensitivity, and an ADA disability defense. The union has to make many considerations and balance are their members safe and working through what members should actually be defended. Ultimately it comes down to what type of policy should the employer have, workplace violence (simple vs. complex), a bullying policy or no policy at all.

Context Matters: An Explanation of Perceived Inconsistencies in Disciplinary Cases

Lawrence Katz & Elizabeth Neumeier

---

The panel of arbitrators addressed a number of perceived inconsistencies in disciplinary cases and posed a number of scenarios to illustrate the importance of context when considering the offense, employment, and discipline. For employees, instances such as off-duty convictions, charges filed and later dropped, publicized arrests, or perceived threats, can greatly influence an employer’s course of action in discipline. This raises the question, should employees be punished for something done outside the workplace? When these issues arise, employers may discharge the employee for two reasons: determination that in light of the findings the employee is no longer suitable for the position or fear that the offense may be repeated on the job, also known as preventative discharge. An employer should question, what is the nexus of the offense to the employment? An employer must also consider the context of the offense and employment: Can the implication of the conviction be overwritten by a good record of employment? While an employer may be inclined to avoid discharge, especially of a good employee, other influences such as past practice or pressure from the public may lead the employer to take action for its own protection.

The panelists concluded with the issue of threats in and outside the workplace. Of great importance is where an employer draws the line in determining if a threat is real. What is the workplace policy on threats? Employers must decide if the threat warrants discipline and education, or the employee should be discharged. Due to this uncertainty and the possibility of misinterpretation, many employers have no-tolerance rules for threats and have prohibited some language altogether in the workplace. It is important for employers to establish clear and consistently enforced policies regarding threats.

Arbitrating in the Public Sector 

Darren F. Corrente & Thomas J. McAndrew

---

The statutory role of the arbitrator was explored at length in this segment of the conference  especially especially in relating to public sector grievances and the recent rising trend of courts in Rhode Island overturn arbitration decisions. the discourse centered on how to balance the statutory responsibilities of the negotiators expounded by the supreme court in the Trilogy, against the excesses of an arbitrator dispensing his/her own brand of industrial justice.  In light of recent R.I court rulings overturning arbitrations, the panelists opined that arbitrators should stay within the four corners of the CBA in making rulings in cases, especially in public sector cases where decisions have broader implications. Arbitrators should put foreword sound reasons grounded in the contract or past labor relations practices for decisions. Further arbitrators should avoid replacing facts of the case with biases in order to preclude judicial intervention.

On the other hand  the panelist stated that both labor and management advocates in arbitration cases ,irrespective of the outcome of the decision ought to insist upon the fidelity of the arbitration process,as an extension of the CBA, except in egregious cases of misconduct by the arbitrator highlighted in the trilogy. Other issues discussed include the imperative of a nuanced approach to arbitration when dealing with the public sector cases due to sundry civil service laws and municipal ordinances that overlap with the typical private sector scheme thus limiting the scope of arbitration on certain issues in the public sector.Overall the discussion centered on the need to push for new legislative provisions that would help clarify public sector employers bargaining positions and limit the penchant of public sector employers exceeding their authority in agreeing to certain provisions in the CBA. Which in many respects is the root cause of grievances in the public sector.

The Pros and Cons of Private Sector Interest Arbitration Provisions

Jack Callaci & Joseph D. Whelan

---

In this session the panel spent time imposing the importance of preparation in the arbitration process.  With private sector interest arbitration the parties cease the right to strikes, lockouts and impasse. It is rarely used in the private sector and there are many considerations that must be determined including: selection of an arbitrator, the hearing procedures, the authority of the arbitrators and post hearing issues. The panel stated there should be a template, definitions should be known, comparables should be defined and the whole economic package should be known. Both parties need to consider if the arbitration will put them in a better position, what they are trying to achieve, and the impact of someone else making the decision. The union’s perspective may be how many unions are winning strikes (is it smart to waive the right to strike if unions are winning). The employer’s perspective is that interest arbitration doesn’t create a panic for agreement, there is time to prepare and the prohibition of a strike allows for a better chance of maintaining a positive relationship with the union. For both parties the considerations have to be weighed and decisions need to make with both parties what the best alternative will be.

Classic, Difficult Issues That Arise During Arbitration Hearings and How to Resolve Them

Joseph M. Daly & Michael W. Stutz

---

The very nature of arbitration proceedings  demand mental acuity to deal with nuanced issues on a case by case basis. Despite this certain issues frequently arise during arbitration hearings and knowledge of the classic solutions to these problems espoused by preeminent arbitrators becomes crucial. The panel discussed some thorny issues that frequently arise in arbitration and classic solutions to these issues. Questions like, what happens when management calls the grant as it’s first witness in a case, what to do when a union steward is called by management and asked to testify about consultation with the grievant, how to handle requests by interested third parties  to attend or participate in arbitration hearings and what to do when the union steward calls company HR manager and asks him/her to testify about internal documents. These as well as other troublesome issues were extensively discussed.

To Arbitrate or Not: Considering the Investigatory Process, Weingarten, Loudermill, last chance agreements, and other settlements.

Jean E. Zeiler & Steven A. Torres

---

Many issues should be considered when deciding whether to take a case to arbitration. A key component of this process, taking place before the disciplinary hearing, is the investigatory interview. During the investigatory hearing, either party may solicit new information from a charged employee, or verify information already received. If an employee has a reason to believe he may be disciplined during a meeting with an employer, his Weingarten rights allow him to have the union representative available at that time present at the meeting. It is essential to make these Weingarten rights known to the employee, for an employer’s failure to allow the presence of a union representative can result in an arbitrator declining to uphold the discharge. Since the union is faced with the issue of the duty of fair representation, it should have a good faith reason for not taking a case forward after a fair investigation has been completed before it can be free of such DFR violation accusations. The duo offered tips for constructing last chance agreements, noting that these agreements are best if they define the triggering event leading to the last chance agreement. It was also noted that a last chance agreement protects the union from violating the duty of fair representation and the employer from future instances with the employee.

The panelists discussed additional factors which influence the decision for an employer or union to take cases to arbitration or settle.  Each party should consider the cost of taking a case to arbitration, weighing in on the cost of trying the case and the amount which would be owed to the employee outside of liability if the case is lost. Both parties will participate in case valuation, or determining the probability of success of the case based on the merits of the case, including the strength of the evidence and proof. The non-tangible issues of public relations and politics also influence the decision to arbitrate such that either side may not want to arbitrate or appeal. Lastly, once an arbitrator is selected, either party may choose to settle after reviewing the arbitrator’s profile and previous decisions.

Effective Advocacy in the Arbitration Process

William E. O'Gara Jr. & Stephen T. Fanning

---

The focus of Steve Fanning’s presentation was the need to carefully prepare for any hearing with an eye towards simplifying the case.  Preparation requires that any potential witness be interviewed and an outline on the questions prepared.  The advocate should also spend time to identify what exhibits will be needed.  An overlooked tool according to Mr. Fanning is contacting the opponent before the hearing to see what issue can be stipulated to with an eye towards eliminating unnecessary testimony and evidence.

Mr. O’Gara focused on the need for an advocate to spend time outlining cross examination of likely opposing witnesses before the hearing.  Cross examination is fundamentally different than direct examination.  While direct testimony allows a witness to tell his story, cross examination is designed to develop facts that undermine that story.  To be effective, cross should be concise and geared to developing facts that support one’s theory of the case.
         
A common failure on cross examination is to simply track the direct testimony.  An additional trap is asking open-ended questions that allow the witness to offer self-serving answers.  Advocacy requires at least a basic ability to cross examine a witness.  Echoing the comments of Mr. Fanning, Mr. O’Gara emphasized the need to prepare for the hearing and outline the testimony that one needs to develop on cross examination.

Mark did an outstanding job of organizing the annual event. Next year's conference is scheduled for October 7, 2011 at the Marriott in Newport

Our 24th Annual Labor and Employment Law Conference is scheduled for April, 292011 at URI's W. Alton Jones Campus in West Greenwich, RI.

Click Here to view the 2010 Arbitration Conference brochure

Are You a Misfit?

Commentary

by Professor Tony Wheeler
Associate Professor of Human Resource Management

I completed my Ph.D. in 2003, and I have worked for three universities since that time, with URI hopefully being final employer. A couple of weeks ago I mentioned to my boss that I had recently experienced a strange feeling at work: job satisfaction. Yes, I teach students about job satisfaction, but I had totally forgotten what it felt like.

I have come to the conclusion that until recently I had been a perpetual misfit. Now people can experience fit in many ways. We can have the right knowledge, skills, and abilities to fit our jobs (unsurprisingly called Person-Job Fit), we can have the right predisposition to fit the career in which we have self-selected (called Person-Vocation Fit), we can share the same values that our employer does (called Person-Organization Fit), and we can have our personal resource needs met by the resources supplied by the organization (think compensation, benefits, work schedule, etc.). There are more ways to experience fit, like with teams and supervisors, but I'll stick with the major research areas within the study of fit and won't bore you with my dissertation on how we can assess multiple dimensions of fit. (Fact or fiction: My dissertation sits next to a toilet in my house so visitors can read it or use it for paper?)

When you fit...on whatever dimension of fit you value the most, which can change, life is good. You feel satisfied with your job, committed to your organization, and willing to help out around the office. We also know that when you fit, you will more likely report that you want to continue working with your organization. But what happens when you don't fit? Is it as simple as having decreased job satisfaction and commitment? Do you always leave your job when you are a misfit? What if you can't leave your job?

I have spent considerable time not just being a misfit but studying misfit. What I have found in my research is that misfit does not always lead to turnover. In fact, it's unlikely that misfit directly leads to turnover at all. Why? First, leaving a job, even when you have several job alternatives, is hard. It affects every part of your life. Just ask my wife. Do you think she's liked moving from California to Illinois to Rhode Island, even as each job got progressively better and we moved progressively closer to our families? Second, no one likes to be a misfit and probably spends time trying to correct the source of the misfit. My primary source of misfit with my previous employers almost always came from disagreements over values, and I spent months trying to persuade others that we should focus more on students than ourselves.

I'm likely not alone (am I?). I recently returned from Montreal, Quebec, where I presented a model of misfit to a symposium at the Academy of Management's annual conference (8,000 academics from all over the world in one place...insert jokes here). I described a series of behaviors triggered by someone feeling like they don't have resources to meet the demands of the environment, which might include passive job search at the beginning. More likely, that first feeling of misfit causes someone to try and adapt to the environment, which might mean trying to actually change the parts of your job that are causing the misfit. Maybe you seek training opportunities. Maybe you ask your boss for some new computer software to help perform your job. Maybe you spend more of your time and effort on the parts of your job that you really enjoy. Maybe you ask your boss to work on a new team, or you volunteer for new assignments. If you successfully re-craft your job, you probably feel like you fit. Life is good again. Congratulations!

If not, you likely engage in a series of either passive or active behaviors. You might simply go into denial (Who's a misfit? Not me.). You might want to hide your misfit for fear of being fired and engage in a lot of impression management (No, really boss, that's a great idea...I love it). Or you might become vocal about the source of the misfit in an attempt to change it (Where is that raise that you promised?). You might even engage in some deviant workplace behaviors (Why do you have so many office supplies from your work at home?). You might do all of these things. Each is an attempt to actively deal with your misfit. All the while your misfit causes you to feel increasingly stressed out, which will lead to burnout. Eventually, you will leave the organization, on your terms (Take this job and shove it, Jet Blue-style!) or theirs (You're Fired!). But this likely takes months if not years.

Maybe it takes a perpetual misfit to understand misfit, which really worries me. Now that I feel like I finally fit, will I no longer understand misfit?