ISM Number Five: ShortISM Nobody Likes to Be Looked Down on

Short people got no reason

Short people got no
Short people got no reason
To live

They got little hands
Little eyes
They walk around
Tellin' great big lies
They got little noses
And tiny little teeth
They wear platform shoes
On their nasty little feet

In 1977 song writer Randy Newman penned and recorded "Short People". It was a song about prejudice. It was a hit that caused alot of controversy. Some people found it funny, some found it offensive. People today still are arguing over it. (See the comments below the lyrics printed here.) It was supposed to be a statement about prejudice in general but the fact that height was selected telling.
 
In the U.S. we do "worship" height, up to a certain height anyway. Studies have shown that taller people, particularly men, generally earn more and are more successful than shorter people. A study in the Journal of Applied Psychology found that "...someone who is 6 feet tall earns, on average, nearly $166,000 more during a 30-year career than someone who is 5 feet 5 inches--even when controlling for gender, age and weight." There were a number of possible reasons for this, including,

• More confidence on the part of the individual
• Higher (pun not intended, but accepted) levels of self-esteem
• Perceptions that taller people are more leader-like
• Perceptions that taller people are more authoritative

The differences seemed to be greater in jobs that required social interaction, such as management, sales, and service positions.

An additional finding was that shorter men were the objects of bias more often than shorter women. However, in my observations there are obvious careers that are closed to shorter women. You will find no runway models that are 5'2", regardless of their beauty.

There are certainly no laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of height, unless of course selecting on the bases of height without a bona fide occupational need leads to adverse impact on a protected class. Requiring someone to be 6' tall just for the heck of it will screen women and hispanic and asian candidates out. So it is always best to understand job requirements.

I personally always wanted to be 6 feet tall. I thought I was 5'11" until one day my doctor measured me at 6 feet. I did not question the accuracy of the measuring tool, I just adopted the measurement. LOL I married a woman who is 5'2 3/4". She is careful to put in the 3/4". She too wanted to be taller. That desire for both of us to be taller must have its roots in how society reacts to short.

So what about it all you "shorties"? Have you felt the bias? Has it had any effect on your career? Have you found it harder to reach the rungs of the ladder?

Next ISM up will be GayISM followed by UglyISM. Any others you want to suggest I explore?

Ageism, Sexism, Racism: Alive and Well

If you have been watching any of the coverage of the U.S. presidential election you realize that people can get pretty passionate about their choices for candidates. That is one of the things that makes the process interesting. People have differences in how they think taxes, energy, war, employment, unemployment, immigration, natural disasters, the economy and a hundred other issues should be dealt with. And discussion/debate on those issues is healthy. Perhaps better solutions are discovered during that process.

But if you have been paying attention you have also seen an ugly side of the process. Rather than healthy debate we have seen biases bared, biases based on race, sex, age, lifestyle and even disability. Biases, for or against a candidate, are, in my opinion not a healthy way to choose a leader. We have seen these biases early on in the Democrat Party process. People wanting Obama exclusively because he is "black" or wanting Clinton because she is a woman. On the Republican side there has been sexism in the critique in the hairstyle of Palin and in her drive and ambition. Who really cares what a leaders hair looks like? Or in asking whether she could care for her family and be a VP. Asked of any male candidates? Not that I have heard. The personal criticism of McCain hits both disability bias and ageism. I have heard people say he looks funny because of the way he holds his arms. Well that happens when they have been broken and not healed correctly. I have heard others call him that "sad, little old white man" and question whether someone his "age" can lead.

Preferring, or not preferring, a candidate based on color of skin, gender, age, or disability is not the way to select your leader. The thing that distresses me the most about this is all those things I have heard or read have been expressed by people in Human Resources. That line about color of skin, gender, age or disability should sound damn familiar!

In my opinion, if you are in HR and have expressed these points of view then I think you should consider a change of profession. If you are going to let these things sway you in your choice of leadership, then in all likelihood they will sway you in your choice of employees, trainees, promotees and demotees. And that has no place in our profession.

"Cat's Paw": Avoid Being the HR Dupe

I learned a new phrase today so I thought I would teach it to you. I was reading an article on a case on discrimination that was headed to the U. S. Supreme Court before it got settled at the last minute. It involved a case of discrimination in which a Hispanic supervisor was biased against a black employee. The supervisor was made life difficult for the employee in a number of ways, including assigning him to weekend overtime work. The employee refused in one case. The supervisor took his case to the regional HR manager (who worked in Arizona, not New Mexico where the supervisor and employee were located). The HR manager told the supervisor to tell the employee that refusal to work would be grounds for termination. The employee called in sick instead of coming to work and was fired.

The employee filed a discrimination claim. Initially the courts dismissed the claim, but an appeals court reversed saying that HR was the decision maker, but it was based upon information provided by the supervisor and what was given was not the complete story. It was headed to the Supreme Court, but the company settled before it got there, paying out $250,000 and committing to alot of training.

In the description of the case they used the term "cat's paw." I had no idea what this meant so I headed to the Internet. Basically it is a term that comes from a fable in which a monkey convinces a cat to reach into a fire to retreive roasting chestnuts. The cat does so, gets its paw singed and the monkey gets all the chestnuts. The cat was duped into being the tool of the monkey, keeping the monkey from getting burned.

In this particular case the HR manager was the cat's paw of the supervisor. The supervisor, by not giving all the information, duped the HR manager into making a decision that the supervisor did not want to make or could not make, but wanted that result. The HR manager, by being remote did not know of previous bias against the employee or favoritism for other employees. The HR manager did not do his/her homework in the case.

The result of this shows that the company can still be held liable for decisions made with good intentions by unknowing parties if the complete story is not known. This means that HR managers need to thoroughly investigate before making recommendations on terminations, etc. As a consultant I occassionally get calls asking "can we fire this person?" I find out about the facts of the case, but my line of questioning always comes back to "Is there any reason to suspect that there may be some bias in this situation?" I ask that question several times, several ways.

So avoid being a "cat's paw" in situations. Don't allow yourself to be duped into making a decision to justify someone else's bias.

Discrimination in the Workplace: Double Digit Increases

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published a News Release on March 5th detailing the bias claims from 2007 compared to 2006. With one exception, bias claims in all areas saw double digit increases. Here are some of the highlights:

• Race continues to be the largest number of claims, with 30,510 claims, an increase of 12%;
• Retaliation claims had the largest increase, up 18% to 26,663;
• Age discrimination has the second largest percentage increase, up 15%;
• Sex/Gender claims were the only area with a single digit increase of just 7%, however, during FY 2007, pregnancy charges surged to a record high level of 5,587, up 14% from the prior fiscal year’s record of 4,901. Sexual harassment filings increased for the first time since FY 2000, numbering 12,510 – up 4% from the prior fiscal year’s total of 12,025. Additionally, a record 16% of sexual harassment charges were filed by men, up from 9% in the early 1990s.
• Disability claims reached the highest level in 10 years.
• The EEOC recovered $345 million in monetary relief for the charging parties.

So why this increase in activity? Here is my take on some of them:

1. More sexual harassment charges by men- More women bosses?
2. Retaliation charges- Lack of training in companies to reinforce that retaliation is as illegal as the harassment and lack of follow up by HR to insure it is not occurring.
3. Slow down of sex/gender claims- better balance of male/female ratio in the workplace.
4. Disability claims- a greater willingness of the disabled to enter the labor force and a result of an aging workforce as baby boomers age;
5. Age claims- well.... I think everyone probably knows the answer to that one.

What is your take on this? You have any alternative explanations?