Microinequities: Anyone you know?

[ABSTRUSE]

Improve Morale by Eliminating
Subtle Slights in the Workplace

By Joann S. Lublin

From The Wall Street Journal Online

Sweat the small slights. At a workshop in New Brunswick, N.J., last month, leadership coach Brigid Moynahan was teaching 20 female executives about "microinequities" -- the subtle putdowns, snubs, dismissive gestures and sarcastic tones that can sap motivation -- when she inadvertently exhibited demoralizing behavior herself.

She praised another facilitator for preparing an exercise to promote inclusion, then forgot the associate, Judy Francolini, was supposed to run the drill and led it herself. Ms. Moynahan, president of Next Level, a consulting firm in Montclair, N.J., quickly apologized. In trying to avoid microinequities, she sheepishly told participants, "you will make mistakes."

Microinequities, a pervasive though often subconscious phenomenon, hurt everyone's career. Receive too many, and your productivity suffers. Send too many negative messages, and your team's performance lags. These cumulative little acts of exclusion "can make an organization unsuccessful," Ms. Moynahan observes. "People leave organizations because they don't feel valued there."

No wonder microinequities training like hers is gaining in popularity. "This is this year's 'in' thing," says Mary Rowe, the MIT ombudsman who coined the term in 1973.

Consultant Stephen Young says 34,000 employees at more than 62 businesses have come to his three-hour microinequities seminar since the July 2003 launch of his Montclair firm, Insight Education Systems. Nearly half of 412 Merck attendees polled by the pharmaceuticals giant said their new awareness of micromessages improved business relationships.

Ms. Moynahan's "Count Me In" workshop was part of her six-session leadership program hosted by Rutgers University's Institute for Women's Leadership. Casually dressed executives from numerous industries spent one whole day learning to handle microinequities and steer clear of inflicting them on co-workers.

The women had no difficulty recounting instances of feeling devalued or excluded on the job. "When a boss or someone else takes credit for our work," one participant volunteered. "Not being included in small talk," chimed in another. "Being interrupted by someone talking big, encroaching on your space," a third woman recalled.

Workshop members devised skits to illustrate exclusionary situations. In one, a drug-company senior manager portrayed a timid worker conferring with her male superior. He cut her off when she tried to speak and ignored her to take his wife's call about which sexy dress she should wear to a dinner party.

"I'm flashing back to bosses like that," this woman said afterward. "It's like you're not there. Your time is not important. ... You feel angry."

Any time we feel hurt "about not being recognized, we take it personally," Ms. Moynahan agreed. "But taking things personally is a way to get stuck." On the other hand, she said, ignoring subtle slights is just as bad as retaliating with an explosive personal attack because "you start feeling that you're no good."

Ideally, you should react immediately by affirming the value of your relationship with a microinequity sender -- perhaps by saying, "I want to be part of your team," Ms. Moynahan advised. Give the benefit of the doubt; assume the behavior was unintentional. Next, she continued, pose a nonthreatening question. Ask, "Did someone forget to put my name on the distribution list?" Or "Did you put your e-mail in all caps because you're mad?"

The workshop leader distributed a toolkit with additional tips. Among them: Describe the offensive behavior factually. Express how it affected you and others. Suggest specific changes that require feedback. Spell out the changes' potential benefits for all involved.

It's equally important to keep yourself from sending negative minimessages that wall out co-workers, Ms. Moynahan emphasized. When you rush down the hall so fast that you fail to greet a colleague, you may make enemies, she warned, so "go back and reconnect," with an apology for being busy.

A major bank vice president admitted that she sometimes listens harder to her star players than B+ ones. That's a mistake, Ms. Moynahan believes. "The person who is not categorized as a high performer needs to feel valued" as well.

Participants then paired up for an exercise to widen their perceptual lenses so they could see beyond associates' age, ethnicity, accent, rank, tenure, likeability or other factors that might cause their colleagues to be ignored. In paying closer attention to people you consistently overlook, you will discover ways to turn their differences into advantages, Ms. Moynahan suggested.

During a closing circle, each executive agreed to act more inclusively at work. A senior manager for a big accounting firm promised she will treat her latest team member better, despite the newcomer's reputation for being slow to finish projects. "I already have devalued her," the manager conceded. But thanks to the workshop, she will ask the staffer, "What other things can I do to make you feel more included?"

 

[hugo_sam]

Great article Abs!!!!!!
Good thoughts and things to remember.
Reminding us that what has meaning to us may have little meaning to the next person or vice versa! What we neglect may be hurtful to another.
You're a gem for finding and posting it!!!
Thanks!
*hugs*

 

[lil_elvis]

Nah, I blieve in macroinequities. Just treat everybody like shit.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I just read a brief article about it in a magazine. It talked about how you go for a job interview and the person hiring you checks their email or doodles while you're interviewing them.
It's a good way to pick up on those things and when they do it you can say "Fuck off you ignorant shitball, I don't want to work for a demeaning pig like you"

 

[rgraham666]

T'aint news to me.

The best book I ever read on business went on repeatedly about treating your employees right, about treating them like people.

The biggest inequity is when people were redefined as human resources.

 

[SeaCat]

Hmmmmm, maybe I should find this article and send it to my boss?

Cat

 

[BlackShanglan]

She's right about small, basic things being important. I worked with a woman once who was hard-working, knowledgable, determined, and at heart a very caring, good-hearted person. Unfortunately, she had wretched day-to-day manners of the "please and thank you" variety. End result? No one wanted to work with her. Even when she had handed in her notice and was preparing to move on, we had enormous difficulty getting anyone to go train with her to take over the position. She had a reputation for being sour and surly. Once you got to know her well, you realized that it was carelessness and not malice, but not many people took the time to get to know her well. Not with that welcome.

Shanglan

 

[cantdog]

On the other hand, the constant parade of management-speak "in things for this year" is just too much to keep up with.

Most of this stuff is candy-ass in the extreme, particularly since admin people spout it without meaning a word of it.

Managerial culture is repellent, even when the insights into human motivation are accurate.

 

[rgraham666]

Managerial culture is repellent, even when the insights into human motivation are accurate.

Which is why I can't work anymore.

My next job will come to an end when the question, "Does anyone know who twisted the boss' head off?" is answered.

 

[Guest]

Despair

For all your attitude needs to bring to work

 

[Selena_Kitt]

No one wanted to work with her. Even when she had handed in her notice and was preparing to move on, we had enormous difficulty getting anyone to go train with her to take over the position.

What, no big party sendoff with cake and balloons and everything?

 

[cantdog]

Poor kid. Lack of socialization. Remedial study of miss manners; next case!

 

[R. Richard]

Accidental microinequities are bad. People need to work as a team. However, the team needs to consist of workers who contribute. If you have a team that contains a person who cannot or will not contribute a reasonable share, you need to replace the dead wood with a new team member. Keeping dead wood is a MACROINEQUITY!

However there is no excuse for bad manners at work. The person who you insult this year may be your boss next year. The person you insult this year may be your main support for promotion next year. It is just good business to treat people who deserve respect with respect. I make the distinction of "people who deserve respect," because there are a lot of people in a typical work situation who do not really work and thus do not deserve respect. I have always tried to find said people a place where they will fit in with the people; preferably a place with a competitor.

A secondary benefit of treating people well is that some people need only a bit of confidence to become stars or even superstars. If a leader guives them the confidence with a little extra care, the rewards can be very large.

JMHO.

 

[BlackShanglan]

A secondary benefit of treating people well is that some people need only a bit of confidence to become stars or even superstars. If a leader guives them the confidence with a little extra care, the rewards can be very large.

JMHO.

Agreed. It really quite amazes me how many problems at work are essentially down to those sorts of issues: people in positions where they know they don't fit in but are afraid to ask for changes, people uncomfortable with elements of their jobs that they can succeed at with more training, people who managers don't realize really are trying to do too much at once and aren't willing to appear to complain, etc. At my old position at an animal shelter I saw one employee literally go from one of our most resistive to fund-raising efforts to one of our best fund-raisers in less than a week following a friendly but intensive review of where our money came from and went to and why we really needed that extra revenue stream. He'd been embarassed about it before; he thought we were trying to ratchet up over-the-odds payments by asking people adopting pets (and paying a fee to do so) to consider making an additional donation. Once he realized that every animal that left our shelter had already cost us about twice the adoption fee, he was on board in an amazing way, and armed with information to bring the point home to the adopters as well. When you got down to it, it really wasn't bad attitude; it was just bad assumptions.

Shanglan

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I just don't buy the assump[tion that people's psyche's are so fragile. Most of the people I've worked for have cut me off, put meon hold while they dealt with something else, etc. etc.

When you are manageing, you are in essence fighting a never ending stream of problems and you have to prioritize them. Lord knows when I handled shipping I cut people off contantly, my subordinates, co workers and even my bosses. When you have 18 semi tractor trailers that have to be loaded correctly and shipped with goods needed the next day, it only takes about ten sets of eyes and hands and 100% concentration. I told a coprorate Vp to shut up once, when I was having to do a manual checkdown on a truck because the scanners failed. He didn't seem particularly offended or minimized, just took his cell phone out of the office.

Breeches of common courtesy over a long term can be damageing, but programs like this are, IMHO, smoke and mirrors. Psyco babble masquerading as good management technique. The basic thrust of nearly all micro manageing technique comes down to this, you are trying to make up for under paying and over working people. A dollar an hour raise would do more for morale and productivity than all the theory applied "corectly" and then some. But that ain't happening, since every company looking to control costs looks to cut salary and benefits first. So they come up with all of this crap to explain low productivity and surly workers.

One final note on this, if you have made the same observations i have, don't voice them to your bosses. they get rather put out and feeling minimized when you do

 

[Recidiva]

Can we just buy ourselves large plastic bubbles that protect ourselves from any and every jarring experience?

That way we don't have to learn about other people or the way they think or process things or accomodate them.

We can just take offense at anything and everything.

It comes with an outboard lawyer and transcriptionist.

We'll call it the "NO, YOU!"

 

[hugo_sam]

I just don't buy the assump[tion that people's psyche's are so fragile. Most of the people I've worked for have cut me off, put meon hold while they dealt with something else, etc. etc.

When you are manageing, you are in essence fighting a never ending stream of problems and you have to prioritize them. Lord knows when I handled shipping I cut people off contantly, my subordinates, co workers and even my bosses. When you have 18 semi tractor trailers that have to be loaded correctly and shipped with goods needed the next day, it only takes about ten sets of eyes and hands and 100% concentration. I told a coprorate Vp to shut up once, when I was having to do a manual checkdown on a truck because the scanners failed. He didn't seem particularly offended or minimized, just took his cell phone out of the office.

Breeches of common courtesy over a long term can be damageing, but programs like this are, IMHO, smoke and mirrors. Psyco babble masquerading as good management technique. The basic thrust of nearly all micro manageing technique comes down to this, you are trying to make up for under paying and over working people. A dollar an hour raise would do more for morale and productivity than all the theory applied "corectly" and then some. But that ain't happening, since every company looking to control costs looks to cut salary and benefits first. So they come up with all of this crap to explain low productivity and surly workers.

One final note on this, if you have made the same observations i have, don't voice them to your bosses. they get rather put out and feeling minimized when you do

Sorry Colly,
On thie one I would have to disaggree. There can differences in attitude, depending on where and what you do. I don/'t disagree with you your thoughts an managing and juggling problems constantly.
However, I found that mnay did have egos that fragile. And to top it is was usually the loudest and most disruptive that were easiest brusied. I ran into the 'problem' constantly. Oh course I WAS the asshole boss because accomplishment of the goal was more important then the innumerable petty 'issues' that forever cropped up. There is also a MAJOR difference culturally between where y ou are and attitudes about work and where I am now. Around here work is a social time and the mission is secondary. I'm not saying is right, but that it how it is and across many companies and job types. It just makes management harder to remember all the fragile egos along with the needed work.
Hugo

 

[rgraham666]

It boils down, in my opinion, to Jefferson when he pointed out that the world is divided into democrats and aristocrats.

Aristocracy is stable, organised efficiently, and easy to understand.

Democracy is always in flux, not very well organised and you're never quite sure if you understand it.

However, the stability of aristocracies makes them unable to react to changed conditions. It has to reject large portions of what people can offer, and often the people themselves as they don't fit within the bounds of the organization. Humans are more comfortable with it though, both by nature and culture.

Democracies are more likely to survive and prosper as they can react to changing conditions. They are also more able to use people as democracy is more concerned with what people can do than how they fit in. But humans are uncomfortable with democracy. It doesn't suit their nature.

Shrugs. Companies and societies survive on their ability to react to changes and utilization of all the talents within in it. If they can't do either, they don't survive.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The biggest inequity is when people were redefined as human resources.

Amen to that.

I've never known HR to come up with anything that was helpful to anyone except themselves. They're th Black Hole of the coporation, consuming great gobs effort and recources and emitting nothing but damaging x-rays.

I loved those HR training sessions on Open Communication where everyone sits around scared to death to open their mouths.

 

[Recidiva]

Amen to that.

I've never known HR to come up with anything that was helpful to anyone except themselves. They're th Black Hole of the coporation, consuming great gobs effort and recources and emitting nothing but damaging x-rays.

I loved those HR training sessions on Open Communication where everyone sits around scared to death to open their mouths.

I kinda thought having to take the sexual harassment course when I was the only female in the company was sexual harassment.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Breeches of common courtesy over a long term can be damageing, but programs like this are, IMHO, smoke and mirrors. Psyco babble masquerading as good management technique. The basic thrust of nearly all micro manageing technique comes down to this, you are trying to make up for under paying and over working people. A dollar an hour raise would do more for morale and productivity than all the theory applied "corectly" and then some. But that ain't happening, since every company looking to control costs looks to cut salary and benefits first. So they come up with all of this crap to explain low productivity and surly workers.

Hmmm. I don't know. While I agree with you that this sort of talk often does arise in situations where there are other stressors, I'm not convinced that money is always at the bottom of it. Often, when people are snarling "They ain't payin' me enough to put up with this crap," it's the crap and not the pay that they would really like to see change. If some of it is about how they feel they are treated, it's as well to start there as anywhere. I'll agree that any "too much work / too few people" situation is inherently going to leave people stressed, angry, and irritable, and that that should be remedied - but treating them like humans in the field of manners is perhaps seen as encouragment that one might ultimately treat them like humans in terms of asking them to do a normal human quantity of work?

So much for fond hopes. But then, I apparently have odd ideas of what constitutes pleasant manners. I was baffled to hear several colleagues describe our second-in-command as "charming" following a tense meeting in which he weaselled away from every direct question put to him and every direct answer requested. I can't quite comprehend how anyone could find such an untrustworthy and essentially dishonest person "charming." To me, being forthright (graced with tact) is part of having good manners.

Shanglan

 

[impressive]

To me, being forthright (graced with tact) is part of having good manners.

Shanglan

You personify this, Shang ... well, horse-onify it, anyway.

 

[Recidiva]

Hmmm. I don't know. While I agree with you that this sort of talk often does arise in situations where there are other stressors, I'm not convinced that money is always at the bottom of it. Often, when people are snarling "They ain't payin' me enough to put up with this crap," it's the crap and not the pay that they would really like to see change. If some of it is about how they feel they are treated, it's as well to start there as anywhere. I'll agree that any "too much work / too few people" situation is inherently going to leave people stressed, angry, and irritable, and that that should be remedied - but treating them like humans in the field of manners is perhaps seen as encouragment that one might ultimately treat them like humans in terms of asking them to do a normal human quantity of work?

So much for fond hopes. But then, I apparently have odd ideas of what constitutes pleasant manners. I was baffled to hear several colleagues describe our second-in-command as "charming" following a tense meeting in which he weaselled away from every direct question put to him and every direct answer requested. I can't quite comprehend how anyone could find such an untrustworthy and essentially dishonest person "charming." To me, being forthright (graced with tact) is part of having good manners.

Shanglan

Best line from "Into the Woods"

"I was raised to be Charming, not Sincere" - Prince Charming

 

[BlackShanglan]

You personify this, Shang ... well, horse-onify it, anyway.

That's awfully kind of you, Impressive. Many thanks for the thought and for the wonderful verb "to horse-onify."

 

[rgraham666]

In a courtier based system, as ours more often is Shang, your second in command is going to be highly successful.

It is, as the article pointed out, a matter of morale. If your employees feel that you find them important enough to treat them well, their morale and productivity soars.

Unfortunately, this is a lot of work, and worse, morale can't be measured. In our society, things that can't be measured or marketed don't really exist.

So most managers prefer the NKVD approach, a lot of fear and occasional mass executions. Fear is an easily understood emotion, and body counts can be measured.