The Economics of Emotional Intelligence

On May 24th, I gave a presentation called Emotional Intelligence – The Missing Ingredient in Workplace Dynamics at a Young Presidents’  Organization YPO Webinar. In the presentation I advance a performance management system called The Covenant Model which forces critical dialogue to build relationships between managers and subordinates. One of the questions raised was:

“How much does introducing The Covenant Model cost”?

Time did not permit me to give an adequate response, something I will attempt to do in this article.

First of all, this system should not be viewed as a cost, but rather as an investment to improve individual and group performance and reduce unnecessary stress factors.

To put this into some context, based on extensive research, two thirds of North American workers are not being managed or led, rather they are being monitored and controlled; and communication between managers and employees is limited to direct orders, the annual or semi-annual performance review, and when things go south.

We have also found that most performance management systems do not adequately address the issues of diversity, inclusion, equity, fairness, preferential treatment, cronyism, ambiguity, subjectivity, bias and relevancy of activities. These ten issues exist in most organizations.

Current performance management systems in place in most organizations do little to improve performance and are primarily used to determine compensation and advancement rather than as a means to facilitate constructive and positive manager/subordinate relationships. Another deficiency is a disproportionate emphasis on results versus how such results are achieved.

The role of management is to apply the 5 R’s – the RIGHT people, doing the RIGHT things, the RIGHT way, at the RIGHT time, for the RIGHT reasons. Given the current manager/subordinate relationships, for two thirds of North American workers the 5 R’s are not effectively being applied. If managers are not doing this, they are not really managers.

Unless the 5 R’s are effectively applied, there is no way full potential performance can be realized.

The Covenant Model is a value exchange model, which establishes the framework to build constructive and positive relationships. Here is the way it works. The employer sets out clear expectations they have of employees on performance, behaviours and attitudes. From this the employer solicits from employees what they need from the employer to deliver on the expectations they have of them. Once agreement is reached, it becomes a covenant. Key to this is rather than the annual or semi-annual reviews, there are regular and ongoing discussions to ensure the expectations of each are being met.

People need to be comfortable in having these discussions. This is where emotional intelligence comes in. Managers must have the ability to identify, use, understand, and manage their own emotions as well as the emotions of others, and their emotional relationship with others. Then they will not only be more comfortable in having these critical discussions, but they will also become more effective leaders.

Having applied this model for years in the organizations under my responsibility, I can attest that, effectively applied, it:

• improves individual and group performance,

• reduces unnecessary stress, surprises and excuses,

• identifies issues, opportunities and risks, and

• increases the ratio of employees to managers (i.e. fewer managers)

I have found that there is a general lack of understanding on how to improve performance; and opportunities for this are usually lost, and therefore the ability to achieve full potential is not realized. Specifically, here are three opportunities that are usually overlooked.

1. Target cost reductions as a percent of revenues vs absolute dollars. By increasing revenues and holding or increasing overheads and expenses at a lower rate than the increase in revenue is a productivity improvement.

2. Eliminate micro controlling. The term micro management is a misnomer, it’s not managing. Giving people at all levels greater autonomy allows for an increase in the employee to manager ratio.

3. Reduce bureaucracy, and the trivial non-value activities. Given that 74 percent of North American employees feel that their organizations are overly focused on trivial and bureaucratic activities, this represents a huge opportunity not only for individual organizations but overall GDP.

Let me illustrate, with a case example – Shoppers Drug Mart, Canada’s largest Drug Retailer, where I helped lead a management buyout in 1999.

At the time of the buyout, we had 567 stores operating under a franchise model with a head office and eight geographic divisions (each with their own infrastructures).

What we found was a loose federation of 567 companies where the only consistency was inconsistency in variety and assortment, store conditions, staffing levels, scheduling, pricing, hours of operation and customer relationships. Although it was a franchise model, they operated under a command and control approach, and divisional support was minimal; and there was more focus on the results rather than on how results were achieved. We also found that store operating costs, divisional and head office overheads, and ratios of stores per district managers far exceeded industry benchmarks.

Our objective to double the size of the business within a decade required a different operating and relationship model. Recognizing the benefits and the potential of a franchise model, rather than change to a conventional chain similar to a Walgreen and CVS, we embarked on reinventing our franchisee relationship using The Covenant Model.

The expectations we set for the franchisees included adherence to newly established standards on store conditions, pricing, merchandising and marketing plans, staffing levels and schedules, and programs to build relationships with the customer.

In extensive individual and group sessions these expectations were presented and discussions focused on what the franchisees expected of us to deliver on our expectations of them.

The expectations they identified included the ability to provide input on the standards; on programs being introduced; before any major changes, facility improvements, new or updated technologies, more communication, and more autonomy versus divisional command and control.

Agreement was reached, which became our covenant.

This transformation of our relationship occurred in less than a year, which resulted in our having a superior economic model against industry benchmarks. We also reached our objective of doubling the size of the number of stores within seven years rather than ten. Our EPS went from $1. to $2.64 and the enterprise value went from $5. per share to $58.

We attribute these results to the value exchange relationships we built with all of our stakeholders by applying The Covenant Model. If we could do it – so can you.

Emotions are What Build Relationships and Trust

Emotional intelligence is largely viewed in the business community as a soft skill to make people happy and be nice to each other. This perception is debunked in a recent book, A Leader’s Guide to Solving Challenges with Emotional Intelligence, written by David R. Caruso (a good friend and an associate of mine at Yale) and Lisa T. Rees. 

In the introduction they cite an IBM study of 1,500 CEO’s interviewed on the future of leadership development indicating:

“Their number one concern and worry is that today’s leaders are ill equipped to lead in volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous conditions”.

They also note the World Economic Forums position that:

“emotional intelligence is one of the 10 required skills for the future workforce”.

In a Mental Health America/Faas Foundation study called ‘Mind the Workplace’, we found that relationships and trust in most organizations are shockingly dismal. Consider these responses from over 20,000 workers:

• Only 17 percent feel that their company always or often appropriately deals with coworkers who are not doing their job.

• Only 28 percent feel that all people are held accountable for their work, regardless of their position in the company.

• Only 36 percent feel if things get hard, their supervisor will always or often support them.

• Only 34 percent trust their team or coworkers will always or often support their work activities.

• A whopping 77 percent feel that people are being unfairly recognized while others with better experience or skills don’t get recognized.

• Given these statistics, it is small wonder that from the same study 71 percent always, often or sometimes speak poorly about their company to others.

Much of what is out there on emotional intelligence has a disproportionate focus on improving individual wellbeing, self-care, and promoting relax and engage in positive emotions all of the time.

This in my view is why emotional intelligence is viewed as a soft skill.

In their book, Caruso and Rees make it clear that their goal is “not to have you be a happy, upbeat, cheery, positive person all of the time.” They want you to “engage with and grapple with the toughest leadership challenges and to succeed at those challenges.”

Another goal is “not to keep a smile on your face…” but rather “give you the skills, focus and energy so you have the emotional resources to engage with the toughest leadership challenges.”

In the book, pragmatic emotional intelligence blueprints are provided for solving the tough leadership challenges they have identified, which are largely much in line with the ones highlighted in my book From Bully to Bull’s Eye – Move Your Organization Out of the Line of Fire. They are:

• Leading teams in strategic planning and visioning.

• Giving feedback to an underperforming employee

• Delivering disappointing news to a high achiever

• Laying off an unsatisfactory employee

• Retaining an under-utilized top-notch employee

• Dealing with a dissatisfied team

• Leading unproductive meetings

• Leading virtual teams

• Making an unpopular decision

• Dealing with a volatile boss

• Dealing with a disengaged boss

• Dealing with an unethical boss

• Working with an overreaching colleague

• Working with a volunteer board of directors

• Working with an unmotivated colleague

• Working with unsupportive colleagues

• Dealing with an unhappy client

• Presenting to a skeptical audience

• Responding to an angry email

• Dealing with a work bully

• Dealing with uncertainty and volatility

• Delivering unwelcome news

A Leader’s Guide to Solving Challenges with Emotional Intelligence is a must read for everyone in a management and leadership position and become compulsory in B school and executive development curriculum.

To Improve Workplace Health, Let’s Bring Back the Human Factor

We have made progress in making hiring and firing processes more open and fairer in recent decades, but is it enough? Are employers and employees better off? Much of our progress has come in the legal arena, in large part because of the Americans with Disabilities Act and other statutes that have reduced or eliminated discrimination based on chronic disease or condition. We applaud this progress.

But we also recognize that in developing rules about what can and cannot be discussed and disclosed in the workplace, we have created an unintended consequence as well. We’ve eliminated the human factor in much of the employer/employee relationship. And, we would argue, that has cost productivity and led to the kinds of often toxic, demeaning, and dehumanizing workplaces that exist today.

Mental Health America and the Faas Foundation have been working to assess and improve workplace health and mental health. Our initial goal was to develop processes by which employers could better recognize and support valued employees with mental health challenges. As we did our work, it became clearer that it isn’t only the mental health challenges people bring to the workplace that we need to address; it is the mental health challenges that evolve or worsen from the stress of the workplace.

Focusing on workplace stress might in fact be the key to improving workplace mental health.

Consider the following statistics from Mind the Workplace, a report we recently released from a survey of more than 17,000 employees across nineteen industries:

• Just under half feel that their employer appropriately deals with co-workers who are not doing their jobs.

• Over 40 percent feel that employees are rarely or never held accountable for their work, regardless of their position in the organization.

• Over 45 percent feel some employees are being unfairly recognized, while others with better experience and skills don’t get recognized.

• Over 50 percent feel that they could be fired or let go at any time.

• Over 45 percent feel their organization is overly focused on trivial activities.

• Only 26 percent feel their organization has realistic expectations about their workload.

It is clear from this research that performance management is a huge contributor to workplace stress.

And while performance management is at the heart of the annual- and semi-annual review process today, there are not very many employees – only 35 percent – who feel confident that the will have the support of their supervisor when things get hard for them in the workplace. This leads to a sense of loneliness and isolation. Former Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy recently argued in an essay in the Harvard Business Review that there is a loneliness epidemic in the American workplace, writing that:

“many employees – and half of CEOs – report feeling lonely in their roles.”

So, what should we do about this?

An important first step is for employers to learn how their employees are feeling and why they feel the way they do. It is easy to survey employees quickly and anonymously these days via online screening tools. The only obstacle is fear of the response. That fear can be addressed by understanding how best to respond to the information gathered.  There are many tools and strategies to help with that.

In a related project, a third partner of ours – the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence– has launched an Emotional Revolution in the Workplace initiative. Through this innovative program, Yale researchers are taking a deeper dive into the culture of the American workplace, and developing new strategies for building on what’s best in that culture to improve workplace health and well-being.

Here’s what we recommend – a creative, energetic worker review process that forward-thinking employers can substitute for the old, tired annual reviews. This process should begin with an employer’s own workplace survey. It should then result in a covenant with all employees, which can be used to:

• Give managers and supervisors the tools they need to address the barriers to employees working to their full potential and capacities.

• Normalize critical discussions among managers and subordinates by training emotional intelligence.

• Develop and agree on clear, measurable and reasonable expectations for the employee, and determine what the employee needs to be able to deliver on those expectations.

• Make the changes required to support supervisors and employees.

• Conduct regular and ongoing meetings using the covenant as the basis for the discussions.

What this would accomplish is simple. It will bring the human element back into the equation. And it will bring more productivity back into the workplace.

Is Your Organization Sitting on a Ticking Time Bomb?

Over the last five years I have dedicated much of my time to organizational dynamics with a focus on culture and climate. This work is captured in a number of published articles, over three hundred blog posts and two books, the most recent being, From Bully to Bull’s-Eye: Move Your Organization Out of the Line of Fire.  

What I have found is that most organizations have a culture of fear and open secrets where leadership (including boards) either is oblivious to what’s going on; or they are at the root of the problem.

A recent survey of Canadian of C Suite executives indicated that 94 percent of them believe that there is not a sexual harassment problem in their organizations. My bet is that if they were asked if there were any other improprieties in their organizations, the number would be the same. I would also bet that if a similar survey were conducted in the United States, the number would be the same. In Canada last week, within 48 hours, Patrick Brown– Ontario’s Leader of the Opposition, Jamie Baillie– Nova Scotia’s Conservative Leader, Kent Hehr -the Federal Sports and Disability Minister, Paul Bliss – a prominent CTV reporter, and a Royal Canadian Mounted Police doctor were ousted over sexual harassment allegations. To those 94 percent I suggest you reconsider this.

Since I started working on organizational dynamics, we have been overwhelmed by stories in the media about organizational wrongdoing. The consistent reaction from boards and senior executives have been claims of not being aware. After exposures have been investigated, another constant has been revealed – these improprieties and wrongdoings were open secrets for years and in some instances decades.

The recent #MeToo exposures has certainly highlighted these dynamics and I must say, with little satisfaction, validated what I have been harping on. And the horrific USA Gymnastics scandal is a gut wrenching illustration. My prediction is that the #MeToo movement will start to go beyond politics, government, the media and entertainment; and it will go beyond sexual harassment.

Employees are coming to realize, that they have been conditioned to accept the abnormal as the norm. They are also coming to realize that they have a responsibility to expose situations that put them and their coworkers at risk; and they are looking for ways to do this.

This is a tsunami just waiting to happen! The next industrial revolution!  And because of this, “The time has come the walrus said to talk of many things…”

For boards of directors, “the time has come” to recognize that “Houston we have a problem”.

From this point on, board directors should not get off the hook by deflecting exposures of abuse, harassment and ethical breaches to management. They must act now to assess the culture and climate of their organization and determine whether there is problem; and if there is, they must determine who knew what, when did they know anything, and what they did about it. And then they must take measures to hold people accountable and punish the offenders. More importantly, take must measures to ensure that the behaviors or actions stop and do not recur. It’s time to build trust again between the organization and the employees

To fast track this, boards should determine how employees feel and why they feel the way they do about the work they do; the relationships they have at work; and the organization. The Faas Foundation and Yale Centre for Emotional Intelligence have developed a method by which to conduct this diagnoses.

We have found that this model goes well beyond engagement surveys, and uncovers unnecessary stress factors. More importantly, this is also an indicator of the ability for employees to be open, honest and direct in communicating issues and opportunities.

A quick way for boards to determine if there is a problem is to get the head of Human Resources to fess up on what the ‘open secrets’ are, communicating in no uncertain terms that if they do exist and are not disclosed, they will view that person as being incompetent and/or complicit. My research has shown that in over 80 percent of situations where there is a toxic culture, Human Resources is part of the problem versus part of the solution.

To reduce the fear factor, I have advised many organizations to engage a neutral ombudsperson resource for employees to seek advice on issues. Board directors, like it or not, this is your responsibility. Failing to understand what is going on in your organization must result in the same consequences as the USA Gymnastics Directors have experienced. Some have referred to this entire process has been nothing but a witch-hunt. Nothing could be further from the truth. As Margaret Sullivan suggests in her Washington Post article,  “I’d call it the rough beginnings of justice.”

New Year’s Resolution For Leaders Everywhere: Gaining the Trust of Your People

Since the Weinstein scandal broke, I have fielded many requests from organizational leaders to give them advice on how to ensure that their organizations are not exposed as the result of uncovered improper behaviours. Most are looking to double down on harassment training, which has proven to be a totally ineffective approach to tackling the issue of abuse and harassment for the same reasons that diversity and inclusion programs have failed to move the needle a notch. I assert the reason for this is that emotional intelligence is not being applied.

The concept of emotional intelligence has been around for decades and although most relate to it, leadership has not effectively applied it in their environments, largely because the perceptions are that it is soft. I assert the opposite, and that it has very hard outcomes.

The Yale Centre for Emotional Intelligence and the Faas Foundation have embarked on an initiative whose mission is to help create emotionally intelligent leaders, organizations and communities through the transformations of organizational culture, emotional climates and evidence based practices.

Because of the perceptions, most of the executives reject the prerequisite requirement for my engagement, which is to conduct a culture/climate assessment to determine how emotional intelligence the organization is.

So what are the characteristics of an emotionally intelligent group? It is where:

• Unnecessary stress is minimal.

• There is freedom of expression.

• Feelings are factored into decisions.

• There is a maximum amount of transparency. (No open secrets)

• Behavioral norms are clear and understood.

• Improper behaviors and other wrongdoings are checked at the first whiff of the problem.

• Clear value exchanges are in place.

• The human element takes precedent over technologies in leading.

• The four R’s are constantly applied – The RIGHT people, doing the RIGHT things, the RIGHT way, at the RIGHT time.

Vanessa Druskat and Stephen Wolf, in a Harvard Business Review article on group emotional intelligence, outlined the three conditions for emotional intelligence to have a positive impact – trust amongst members, a sense of group identity, and a sense of group efficacy. What should be added is that without trust amongst members, it is impossible to achieve identity and efficacy.

Based on my experience as a senior executive and consultant, extensive research conducted for my books, articles and blog posts, the number one unnecessary stress factor is the lack of trust and respect employees have in leadership and, by extension, the organizations and institutions.

Rarely a day goes by when there is not a story in the media about abuse of power, inappropriate behaviour, corruption and greed on the part of leadership in every segment of our society worldwide. Whether the sector is business, industry, education, social services, military, police, sport, media, entertainment, not-for-profit, law or religion – none are immune. While this is significant, the question of trust and respect goes far beyond the unethical and illegal.

Leadership is also assessed on whether they deliver on the commitments they make, the extent to which they support the people they are responsible for, are aware of what is really going on in their domain, and take responsibility for situations when things go south or there is a crisis.

On support – in the workplace, the ‘Mind the Workplace’ study, conducted by Mental Health America and the Faas Foundation, shows that only 36 percent of North American workers can rely on their boss for support.

On awareness – a recent C-Suite study in Canada revealed that 94 percent of executives do not believe that sexual harassment is an issue in their organizations. In most of the recent exposures, sexual harassment has been going on for years, and in some cases decades. Leaders in most of the institutions have claimed they were not aware.

On taking responsibility – Wells Fargo is perhaps the most glaring example of leadership not taking responsibility and adding to their lack of credibility, throwing 5,200 junior level employees under the bus. In reviewing the number of instances of wrongdoing, placing the blame on subordinates has been a consistent initial response. Mary Barra stands out for taking responsibility when she, shortly after inheriting the ignition switch scandal, introduced herself at a congressional hearing said, “My name is Mary Barra, and I am the chief executive officer of General Motors … and I am deeply sorry.”

In every relationship, there is a value exchange where there are expectations that each party has of one another. When expectations are not met and/or there is no reciprocity, trust and respect erodes. This is something that I learned fairly early in my career.

On being appointed to head National Grocers, the shared services division of Loblaw Companies Ltd., Canada’s largest retail chain, I commenced a quarterly visit to all of our distribution facilities across the country, where we had town hall meetings with every shift.

In the first of these meetings we outlined the expectations we had of the facility; and we asked for feedback on what employees expected from us to deliver on the expectations we had of them. Among the expectations were facility improvements, including cleaner washrooms, lockers and cafeteria – a pretty basic and easy one to deliver on.

A year or so into my tenure, while I was in a city where we had a facility, I thought I would drop in for a quick visit. Shortly after arriving, I went to the washroom and was appalled by the condition it was in – much different than what we saw during our quarterly visits.

Seething, I went to the plant manager’s office and politely asked him to call someone to bring a pail, Lysol, Windex, a mop, sponges and paper towels. Confused, the manager asked why, to which he got my response – “just humour me, ok?” The cleaning supplies arrived; I took off my suit jacket, rolled up my shirtsleeves, and headed to the washroom, followed by an anxious manager and the man who brought the supplies. People working on the floor all observed this, causing a bit of a buzz.

Once in the bathroom, I said to the plant manager, “I’ll start with the toilets, and you do the urinals”; and to the guy who brought the supplies, “you supervise”.  Well, both of them (excuse the pun) did not know whether to shit or go blind, but they were smart enough not to argue.

Once finished, I asked whether it was necessary to do the other washrooms on the premises, to which I received assurances that it was not. On leaving, I indicated that I would be back in a week to have a town hall meeting with all shifts.

As you can imagine, this incident was relayed to all of our facilities by nightfall, without me having to say a single word.

At the meetings the following week, I apologized on behalf of management that we had not delivered on their expectation of us. I also expressed disappointment that they had not delivered on our expectation of them, which was to call us out on when we were failing, by saying, “We have no problem in calling you out; and for us to be able to trust each other, it’s got to be reciprocal.”

This single incident solidified a strong relationship we enjoyed for almost a decade, where we moved from being a significant laggard against industry performance benchmarks to becoming a leader.

Many people may view this as an insignificant incident; however, it sent a powerful message that trust and respect is not earned by words alone.

Through this I learned that leadership became pretty easy after earning the trust and respect of those for whom I was responsible.

For leaders everywhere I encourage you to have building trust and respect as your New Year’s resolution by factoring feelings into everything you do, first by reflecting on whether people trust you. If they do, and continue to, you will have a Happy New Year!

Some Words of Caution about #MeToo

The Silence Breakers | The Voices that Launched a Movement

Time Magazine has named The Silence Breakers – the women who came forward to divulge their experiences with sexual abuse – as their Person of the Year; The New York Times discusses how their reporters and Ashley Judd continue this national debate about sexual harassment in the workplace; and The Washington Post describes how Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is carrying the banner for sexual misconduct within government.

And, there can be no question that the #MeToo movement is raising the level of awareness and outrage on sexual harassment and abuse. As a result, this has become a very public debate now. While this is a massive force exhibiting very positive action, we must be clear that there are also some very significant dangers to cautious about.

I have conducted extensive research on workplace dynamics and, through my career, handled numerous incidents of sexual harassment. Therefore, I feel I can speak with some degree of authority on the topic. My purpose in writing this is not to discourage exposure, but rather to provide some observations for people to better understand the implications of outing sexual predators.

I want to encourage the #MeToo movement as a credible force – effective, proportionally more focused on the future – and not to simply be seen as a method by which people can seek revenge.

Here are my observations:

Not to diminish sexual harassment and abuse, but it should not overshadow the much bigger issue of bullying, harassment and abuse in the workplace. According to a Harvard/Stanford study, over 120,000 deaths annually may be attributable to workplace stress; and according to a recent Mental Health America survey, much of the stress is unnecessary.

I have found that where sexual abuse and harassment occurs, usually the workplace culture is toxic and other wrongdoings are condoned. Uber has illustrated this in spades. But in general, the IT industry in Silicon Valley, where, as I have discussed in a previous blog post, the harassment and abuse is mostly culturally driven, with few ground rules and parameters on behaviors. Note also that people beyond the victims of the abuse are targeted when, for example, bystanders are forced into complicity under the threat of retaliation if they expose the situation.

Distinctions must be made between what constitutes sexual harassment and sexual abuse. The allegations that are being made range from rape to flirtation, and should be identified and dealt with as such. We cannot and must not abandon the fundamental principles of ‘innocent until proven guilty’, ‘punishment fitting the crime’, and ‘due process’. The #MeToo movement and the media must not become the judge, jury and executor.

Most of the allegations have focused on the entertainment industry and the media. It should not be assumed that this issue is not a problem in other sectors. In the research I have done for my books, blog posts and articleson the topic, it is of epidemic proportions in all sectors.

What did they know, and when did they know it?

Most of the situations that have recently been exposed, and most of the many situations I have been involved with have been open secrets; and the abuse has been going on for extended periods of time, even decades. Boards and bosses who claim ignorance either don’t know what’s going on in their organizations, or they are lying.

There is no question that predators should be penalized; however, the bigger issue is complicity, where for a variety of reasons, predators are allowed to abuse. I suggest that boards, bosses and human resource people who failed to stop the abuse should be penalized even more severely than the predators. I have often asserted that while there is no question that the predators are the villains, because there was no intervention, the predators may also have become the victims. Employers at the first whiff of bad behaviour should nip it in the bud.

Bullies and sexual predators have an uncanny ability to entrap their targets, turning the victim into the villain.

In exposing this situation, people must understand that it is an allegation; and most who are accused will do everything they can to discredit the accuser. They will fight back – and with a vengeance.

Inclusion of women in the workplace could take a serious hit. To avoid the risk of exposure, organizations could be motivated to take the path of least resistance. Diversity may not suffer as much because of legislation and optics, but we should remember, as discussed in this Harvard Business Review article that being diverse does not translate into being inclusive.

Along the same line, concern about being accused could lead to significant change to workplace dynamics beyond changing the abusive behaviors. Margaret Wente, a feature writer for Canada’s Globe and Mail, articulated this when she wrote,

“The post-Weinstein era will be a better place for women. But there will be losses, too. For example, the ordinary, garden-variety banter in the office will be lost. Colleagues will be walking on eggshells, afraid that ordinary gestures of teasing or affection, including all kissing, touching, hugging, flirting and almost all kinds of humanity, might be misconstrued and give offence. Men will no longer meet with women behind closed doors, alone. Casual informality and warmth will be replaced by stiffness, anxiety and prudishness. The world will be a slightly colder place. And that’s too bad.”

When Mike Pence revealed that he does not eat alone with a woman other than his wife, he was mocked. My bet is that many men have taken note.

False accusations, when validated, have the potential to totally discredit the movement. The Washington Post almost being duped into reporting a false accusation by Project Veritas reinforces the requirement for the media to fact check.

In the many situations I have dealt with, a high proportion were a result of a romance between a boss and subordinate soured. Organizations who do not have rules in place for office romances are at huge risk of facing a sexual abuse challenge. For the companies I was responsible for, employees were required to disclose the relationship and where there was a boss to subordinate (direct or indirect) relationship, either the romantic or working relationship needed to be severed. Breach of this rule was grounds for immediate termination for both.

As indicated at the outset, I do not wish for my observations to discourage exposure, but rather have people understand this process of exposure is fraught with implications, the biggest being the #MeToo movement being considered a modern form of McCarthyism.

Resisting Unjust Empires

On the heels of the scandals with Harvey Weinstein and others that revealed the often-hostile work environments people deal with on a regular basis, a new study shows that toxic, dysfunctional and abusive workplaces are the norm, not the exception. It’s time we do something about it.

On October 12, Mental Health America (MHA) and the Faas Foundation released the findings of a study of 17,000 employees across North America, which revealed a very disturbing picture on the state of the workplace.

These findings include:

• 65% of respondents reported being distracted more than 30 hours per week due to a hostile work environment,

• 79% are often distracted or find it difficult to concentrate because of the work environment,

• Only 17% of respondents feel that their company appropriately deals with coworkers who are not doing his or her job.

• Only 36% of respondents feel they can rely on their supervisor’s support.

• 63% of respondents tend to work alone because their workplace is unhelpful or hostile.

• 71% of the respondents always, often, or sometimes speak poorly about their company to others like family and friends.

Beyond the economics of creating psychologically safe, healthy, and fair workplace cultures, the social benefits are huge. Lives can be saved. A 2015 study by researchers at Stanford and Harvard found that 120,000 deaths annually might be attributable to workplace stress. When we consider these are premature deaths, these numbers appear even graver. Reducing unnecessary stress can also help improve the mental health crisis, which has positive impacts on family and society at large.

Fortunately, organizational leaders are starting to take note.

 A recent survey showed that 78% of Fortune 1000 CEO’s and CFO’s view culture as one of the top three factors affecting their firm’s value.

Unfortunately, however, solutions to this have proven to be ineffective and therefore elusive.

Companies and organizations have dedicated enormous resources and energy to change their cultures. Over the last couple of decades, programs on motivation, diversity and inclusion, harassment, and emotional intelligence have become a multi-billion-dollar industry—unfortunately with precious little to show for them. The needle has barely moved a notch; and one could argue there has been regression.

Often these programs are relegated to human resources departments, viewed by most companies as just another corporate fad or merely a legal shield.

We need a holistic approach, creating emotionally intelligent organizations based on what we all learned in kindergarten: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Emotional Intelligence means to be aware of, control, and express one’s own emotions, and to handle interpersonal relationships judicially and empathetically. The ideal workplace culture is where every point of human interaction is constructive and positive.  This is not a question of being t about being nice; it’s about respect. This can be done by making it a requirement for everyone from the CEO to the janitor go through Emotional Intelligence training, and that everyone abide by terms of engagement protocol.

To help organizations create this type of culture, the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence and the Faas Foundation have embarked on an initiative called Emotion Revolution in the Workplace, which will provide evidence-based approaches and solutions to this type of cultural transformation. We are also doing a deep dive on how employees feel about the work they do, the relationships they have at work and how they feel about the organization they work for. More importantly, we are determining why employees feel the way they do on the three dimensions. Our initial findings validate much of what was found in the MHA study.

This initiative is patterned after a Yale study called Emotion Revolution in Schools, which showed that emotionally intelligent schools produce students with better academic, behavioral, and attitudinal results and more civility in schools. Greater evidence is accumulating that there is a spill over effect where students in these schools positively influence their family dynamics.

The results from the school study suggest that if workers feel more positive about their boss and employer, they will be more positive about their interactions at work, and this will have a similar spill over effect where they will have more positive interactions outside the work environment.

This has become even more critical today where we are witnessing extremism, the abnormal becoming the normal, and democracy being dismantled. Emotional Intelligence is a huge resource for people to resist authority, whether at work or in society.

Just imagine if every single individual, in every point of interaction with others, used their emotional intelligence and applied the golden rule.

If we universally applied this in all our institutions and organizations, the world would certainly be a less scary place. If we can bring emotional intelligence into our schools and our workplaces, then the feeling of safety and fairness can follow into our family life and into the community. When people feel frustrated by what happens in politics, schools and workplaces, they are at least able to practice the art of disagreement in a civil way. As I pointed out in the beginning, this has become more critical today.

How Do You Feel? Make Your Voice Be Heard

Now that we know the results of what has been the most divisive election in our lifetime we must reflect on how the political establishment, the pundits and the media totally misread how people feel and more importantly—why they feel the way they do. Emotions, good and bad, drive behaviors. The people have made their decision in a highly charged emotional environment. While we must respect the will of the people, we must work to protect the checks and balances in place so that history does not repeat itself in normalizing the abnormal, and protecting the hard won rights that may be in jeopardy.

There is no question that most people distrust the political system and establishment. Unfortunately this has exposed the ugliness, bigotry and intolerance that have been simmering below the surface long before the election cycle started. It also appears that many of us have forgotten what we all learned in kindergarten, the ethic of reciprocity: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Organizational leaders must understand that the level of distrust extends beyond the political establishment. Rarely a day goes by when we are not exposed to the atrocities committed in every segment of our society: in politics, in government, in business, in religion, in sports, in entertainment and in media. The recent scandals at Wells Fargo, Volkswagen, Fox News and Veterans Affairs have highlighted how pervasive this is.

Based on research I have done on bullying and psychologically safe, healthy and fair workplaces, employees are afraid and angry.

The election revealed a great divide that will continue to exist. It also revealed how fragile democracy is. Unless the political parties and the government totally reinvent themselves in a positive way the divide will widen and democracy will fail. The first step in this reformation is to come to grips with how people feel and more importantly why people feel the way they do.

To come to grips with this in the workplace the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence and the Faas Foundation are initiating the Emotion Revolution in the Workplace to help organizations create psychologically safe, healthy and fair workplaces. Currently, we are conducting a North American survey to determine how employees feel about the work they do, the relationships they have at work and how they feel about the organizations they work for.

Most importantly, we will determine why employees feel the way they do. Our initiative will identify the unnecessary stress factors employees face and provide evidence-based solutions, unleashing the power of emotional intelligence coupled with the ethic of reciprocity.

I encourage everyone to complete the survey and ask you to encourage everyone you know to do so as well.

Take Survey