Strengthening the Front Line The perils of veiled discrimination Favoritism and overlooking an individual’s advancement potential—two ills that undermine productivity By Emily Huling, CIC, CMC “Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Our agency prohibits any kind of harassment, including sexual harassment. Any individual who is subject to verbally abusive language or physical or visual abuse relating to sex, race, religion, age, or disability is expected to report it immediately to your supervisor.” Sound familiar? This statement, or something similar, is common to most insurance agency handbooks. Although this policy reflects legal compliance on an important issue, it does not, unfortunately, eliminate all discrimination problems. When I visit agents’ offices and speak with insurance professionals around the country, I detect a subtle, but damaging, discrimination problem—not necessarily related to age, sex, race, religion or disability—but always harmful to productivity and long-term agency value. I’ve witnessed plenty of managers who are guilty of unfairly judging an individual’s potential or a team’s competence through an erroneous process that constitutes hidden discrimination. If you believe this subtle form of discrimination doesn’t apply to your workplace, consider the following situations I’ve encountered: • A qualified employee is passed over for promotion because the boss didn’t think she could juggle home and work responsibilities, or didn’t look the part. • An individual personnel issue—let’s say chronic lateness—is handled by reprimanding the entire office staff during a meeting instead of confronting the issue with the guilty party. • An employee’s plea for an improved work space (chair, temperature, position of computer) is not addressed and could affect his or her health and/or productivity. • An employee-to-employee conflict is ignored, in the hope that it will go away. • Excuses are made for uncivil or irresponsible employee behavior because he or she is a top producer. • A family member is granted special privileges not offered other employees. Do any of these situations ring true for your office? If so, many of the busi-ness goals you seek will be thwarted unless the hidden discrimination is eliminated. Here are two very different tales of agency owners and how each handled a similar employee advancement personnel situation. Karen was a long-time personal lines CSR in a small town agency. She wanted to do more and earn more money. She asked the agency owner if she could be a producer. Repeatedly, the agency owner told her “no” with no explanation. Finally, Karen left the agency. She had never been asked to sign a non-piracy agreement. She opened her own agency across town. Ten years later, Karen’s agency revenue is twice that of her former employer. Diana was a very conscientious and competent benefits account manager. She had worked her way up from processing and was valued by the agency and her clients for her outstanding work. Diana had talked to the agency owner about her desire for increased compensation and a more challenging position. She wanted to go into sales. Diana convinced him of the many benefits she could bring to the agency as a salesperson. She would be the agency’s first female producer, providing a role model for her coworkers; she was well connected with her clients who would refer business to her; and she was already knowledgeable about the products and markets. She was willing to train her replacement to assure a smooth transition of her accounts. The agency owner agreed. Three years later Diana is a top producer. In addition, she’s mentoring the second female producer in the agency and continually refers business to other departments. Employee favoritism is another form of workplace discrimination, yet most employers deny it exists at all. Favoring one employee over another deflates morale, increases turnover, and thwarts career advancement. Three common favoritism situations are (1) favoring a family member, (2) excusing disrespectful or irresponsible behavior, believing the employee has more positives than negatives and (3) assigning choice projects and clients to a favored employee. Let’s examine how these situations play out. In the first situation, family members not held to the same standards as other personnel will set the standard for the actions and behaviors of all staff. If family members are granted exceptions to accounting guidelines or set their own flexible work hours or dress code, it doesn’t take long for the rest of the staff to follow suit. To assure a top-performing organization, family-member employees need to be held accountable to performance criteria just as any employee should be. In the problem of excusing unacceptable behavior, too often I hear this from agency owners: “I know the CSRs complain how hard he is to work with, but he’s producing business.” My response always is, “He may be writing business, but at what cost?” A producer who doesn’t complete applications, respect the time and workload of the CSR support staff, and adhere to workflow and procedure guidelines for renewal handling is costing the agency money by lowering morale and productivity. Producer performance cannot be measured solely by the amount of business written. Teamwork, accuracy, timeliness, business courtesy and respect should all be considered when determining producer effectiveness and profitability. Regarding playing favorites, why is it so many businesses penalize top-performing individuals with more work? Often it is because they find it easier to do so than to take the time to develop other staff members. Those managers not only risk losing those employees who get fed up and move on, but staffers get the message that they aren’t up to the task. Managers get what they expect. Not expecting top performance from everyone and helping it happen virtually assures mediocrity. Instead, develop less experienced staff in new areas. Give your top performers the challenge to educate others instead of taking on more of the same work themselves. As Frederick Herzberg, industrial psychologist, aptly stated in the 1950s, “More work is not challenging work.” Don’t think that because employees don’t verbally complain about the hidden discrimination that it doesn’t exist in your agency. Review the list objectively to determine which items apply and make changes. Improved morale, productivity, and profits will follow. * The author |
|