Workplace

The future of work will hit vulnerable people the hardest: �鶹��Ƶ expert

Christopher.Sorensen — Mon, 09 Mar 2020 15:11:10 +0000

The future of work will hit vulnerable people the hardest: �鶹��Ƶ expert

Christopher.Sorensen Mon, 03/09/2020 - 11:11

Cutline

People with disabilities, youth, LGBTQ2 people, Indigenous Peoples, certain racialized minorities, immigrants and those with low socioeconomic status are among those who will face barriers to entering the workforce in the future (photo via Shutterstock)

Arif Jetha

Topic

Our Community

�鶹��Ƶ

Artificial Intelligence

Automation

Dalla Lana School of Public Health

A great deal of attention is being paid to the future of work and its impact on Canadians. Often missing from the discussion is the extent to which different workers will be included or excluded from the changing labour market.

The future of work is characterized by a number of rapid and large-scale changes that will affect all industries. Labour market experts point to the growing integration of digital technologies in the workplace, including the application of artificial intelligence and machine learning, automation of job tasks and the robotization of employment.

These technological drivers of change may be coupled with ecological and demographic stresses – like the climate crisis and the aging workforce – that are expected to substantially change the type and availability of jobs, working conditions and the ways work is performed.

But as we look into the Canadian labour market landscape, certain groups of workers face more challenges than the rest of the population. People living with disabilities, youth, LGBTQ2 people, Indigenous Peoples, certain racialized minorities, immigrants and those with low socioeconomic status often face complex barriers to entering the workforce.

Fewer opportunities

When employed, these groups are more likely than population averages to earn lower incomes, experience hazardous working conditions, work precariously, have limited access to employment legislation or statutory benefits and have fewer opportunities for career advancement.

Not all workers experience the benefits of technological growth.

For example, the integration of personal computers in the 1980s contributed to economic expansion and increased demand for workers with technological job skills. But it also spurred a displacement of workers in low-skilled manual and clerical jobs.

As the pace of change in the labour market quickens in the years ahead, the sustainable employment of vulnerable groups could be in greater jeopardy and inequity could widen.

Research seeking to understand the future of work is in its early stages and mainly focuses on technological trends like automation. A 2016 analysis of occupational data estimates that 42 per cent of Canadians work in jobs with a high risk of being affected by automation. The same analysis found that entry-level and low-skilled jobs – those ⁠more commonly held by vulnerable workers – are three times more likely to be affected by automation than professional and management jobs.

Racial disparity

A more recent study conducted by the U.S.-based consulting firm McKinsey & Company highlighted a potential racialized disparity that could worsen with increasing automation. The study found that African-Americans and Hispanic and Latino workers are over-represented in occupations that are expected to be displaced by automation.

One study showed young African-American men with less education are at the highest risk of displacement by automation (photo via Shutterstock)

The study also showed the intersection between race, age and education: Young African-American men with less education are at the highest risk of displacement by automation.

This is just one of a potentially growing number of examples of the impact the future of work may have on vulnerable workers.

To prepare for this expected impact, work has begun on understanding the jobs skills required in the future labour market.

Critical thinking skills

A report by the World Economic Forum indicates that by 2022 the job skills most required by employers will include not only proficiency with new technologies, but also creativity, emotional intelligence and critical thinking skills. The report also found that over half of all existing workers will require significant re-skilling and upskilling to meet the demands of the changing labour market.

However, obtaining these needed job skills may also pose a challenge for certain workers. Data indicates that some groups of workers who are considered vulnerable are more likely to enter the workforce with lower levels of education – another position of disadvantage.

They may also be working in jobs where training and job skills development are scarce. It’s unclear how differences in access to educational opportunities could perpetuate the challenges faced by vulnerable workers in the future of work.

To further our understanding of the future of work, scientists at the Institute for Work & Health, a Toronto-based not-for-profit, are leading research to examine how the changing nature of work may be experienced differently across the labour market. In particular, research is being conducted to anticipate how the different trends will affect vulnerable workers, including young adults and people living with disabilities.

Minimizing shocks and stresses

The ultimate goal of the research is to build on our current understanding of the future of work and uncover potential challenges that could emerge for different groups. Importantly, the research will inform tailored policies and programs to minimize the shocks and stresses.

Increasing numbers of policy- and industry-level initiatives are being undertaken to understand the implications of the future of work and design innovative responses to navigate the changing nature of work. An example is the pan-Canadian Future Skills Centre.

As these initiatives evolve and programs are designed, it will be important to determine how Canadians who have been considered vulnerable members of the workforce are meaningfully included.

Arif Jetha is an assistant professor (status only) at the University of Toronto’s Dalla Lana School of Public Health.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

�鶹��Ƶ study finds extroverts enjoy advantages in the workplace

Christopher.Sorensen — Tue, 04 Jun 2019 20:41:01 +0000

�鶹��Ƶ study finds extroverts enjoy advantages in the workplace

Christopher.Sorensen Tue, 06/04/2019 - 16:41

Cutline

The study by �鶹��Ƶ Scarborough post-doctoral researcher Michael Wilmot found that extroverts enjoyed advantages in motivational, emotional, interpersonal and performance-related categories (photo by monkeybusinessimages/iStock via Getty Images)

Don Campbell

Topic

Breaking Research

Management

Research & Innovation

�鶹��Ƶ Scarborough

Workplace

A new University of Toronto study has outlined key advantages that extroverts enjoy in the workplace.

“There’s been much debate in popular culture recently about the advantages and disadvantages extroverts have in the workplace, but it often overlooks the scientific literature,” says Michael Wilmot, a post-doctoral researcher in the department of management at �鶹��Ƶ Scarborough who led the study.

“We wanted to delve into this research to find out how and to what extent extroversion relates to things relevant to success in the workplace across the lifespan of people.”

A prototypical extrovert, explains Wilmot, often displays the following qualities: talkative, outgoing, prefers taking charge, expresses positive emotion and enjoys seeking out new experiences. By comparison, a prototypical introvert is quiet, emotionally reserved, less energetic, and harder to get to know.

The study, published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, offers the most comprehensive review of existing research (97 meta-analyses in total) relating to extroversion and work-related variables. These variables (165 in total) include things like motivation, work-life balance, emotional well-being and performance. Supporting data was taken from studies across multiple countries, different occupations and across different career moments including education, job application and on-the-job evaluations.

Wilmot (left) and his co-authors found that higher extroversion was desirable for 90 per cent of variables, which suggests a small, persistent advantage in the workplace. However, it was in four categories that extroverts enjoy a distinct advantage: motivational, emotional, interpersonal and performance-related.

“These four appear to really capture the strongest positive effects of extroversion at work,” says Wilmot, whose research looks at how organizations use personality measures to solve workplace challenges.

Wilmot says extroversion is linked with a greater motivation to achieve positive goals – in this case as a desired reward through work. It’s also closely associated with experiencing positive emotions more regularly. As he points out, a happy employee is not only more satisfied with life, they also tend to work harder and are perceived as a better leader. Positive emotions also act as a buffer against stress or adverse experiences at work.

Since extroverts like to be around other people, the third advantage has to do with socializing. By virtue of stronger communication skills, extroverts tend to adapt better to different social situations and are adept at persuasion, which is also a strong leadership skill.

The fourth advantage is in job performance. “This was a real surprise,” says Wilmot, who points to past research that found, of the big five personality traits, only conscientiousness and emotional stability generally predicted performance across different occupations.

He says the reason for better performance likely appears to come from a combination of the three previous advantages.

“If you’re motivated to achieve a goal at work, if you’re feeling positive and you’re good at dealing with people, you’re probably going to perform better on the job,” he says. “These advantages appear to have a cumulative effect over the span of one’s career.”

So what does this mean for introverts?

Wilmot says, while it’s generally advantageous to be extroverted, introverts shouldn’t interpret these findings to suggest they will be at an inevitable disadvantage.

First, as Wilmot notes, few people can be defined purely as an introvert or extrovert, and that everyone displays a range of extroverted and introverted behaviors.

There are also numerous other characteristics that contribute to workplace success, including cognitive ability, conscientiousness and the ability to regulate negative emotions.

A limitation of the study is that it only looked at extroversion and work-related variables. Wimot adds there are many jobs (computer programming, for instance) where introverted characteristics like listening skills or the ability to focus would be more beneficial.

“You might be more introverted, but if you’re intelligent, work hard and bring other things to the table, you’re probably going to do well,” he says.

“At the same time, if you’re more extroverted, but lack the cognitive ability or work ethic, you’re probably not going to be as successful.”

What happens when high achievers retire? This �鶹��Ƶ expert tackles subject in new book

noreen.rasbach — Thu, 15 Nov 2018 17:31:56 +0000

What happens when high achievers retire? This �鶹��Ƶ expert tackles subject in new book

noreen.rasbach Thu, 11/15/2018 - 12:31

Cutline

Michelle Pannor Silver is an assistant professor in the department of sociology and the Interdisciplinary Centre for Health & Society at �鶹��Ƶ Scarborough (photo by Don Campbell)

Don Campbell

Topic

City & Culture

Research & Innovation

Sociology

�鶹��Ƶ Scarborough

Workplace

When we think of retirement, we usually conjure images of silver-haired folks playing golf, going on long vacations or taking daytime naps as a reward for a lifetime of work.

But what happens when that lifetime of work – in a career you hold dear – is deeply connected to your personal identity?

In her new book, Retirement and Its Discontents: Why We Won’t Stop Working, Even If We Can, Michelle Pannor Silver explores this very question. An assistant professor in the department of sociology and the Interdisciplinary Centre for Health & Society at �鶹��Ƶ Scarborough, Silver is an expert in the study of aging, work identity and retirement.

She spoke to reporter Don Campbell about why the transition into retirement can be so difficult, leaving some retirees struggling to find a new sense of purpose and self-worth.

Why do some people resist retirement?

There’s a real sense of discontentment that can come with retirement for people whose personal identities are intertwined with their careers. For some people, who they are and what they do is essentially the same thing.

For my book, I interviewed doctors, CEOs, elite athletes, professors and homemakers who were deeply invested in their work. Many of them operated in demanding environments where they were required to be completely focused on their work and to commit 150 per cent. Well, all of the sudden when that’s gone in retirement they experience not only a drastic change to their daily routine, but also a change in their status and personal identity. For some people that can be a tough pill to swallow.

It’s very interesting to view retirement as a loss of identity, since we mostly tend to think of it in more benign, sentimental terms.

That’s right. The popular portrayal of retirement is a time to play golf and enjoy long walks on the beach. And for many people, retirement is a great experience. The people I interviewed were unique in many respects. They’ve had profound careers and what unites them is that they were deeply connected to what they did. Not everyone is so invested in their work. Many people can’t wait to retire.

The purpose of my book is not a general overview of what it’s like to retire. It focuses on the social construct of retirement. It features the stories of people who struggled with retirement and illustrates that basing retirement timing on age alone can be highly problematic, in part because of the mismatch between what people imagine and idealize for their post-work years. We’re also living in an unprecedented period of time where a gap has emerged between life expectancy and the average age of retirement. My book explains that retirement pension schemes were originally designed so that people died before, or just as they reached, retirement age. Then over time, we adapted to the “freedom 55” mindset. Now we are in another adjustment period where retirement is no longer in sync with life expectancy.

What are some examples of how these people reacted to retirement?

Take doctors. Medicine is a greedy institution in the sense that we demand a great deal from doctors. They go through years of schooling and training, and if they make it they are acculturated to a work environment that requires they prioritize their work above all other aspects of life. They’re constantly on call, expected to stay on top of the latest advancements in medicine, make life-and-death decisions, and they’re held accountable for their decisions.

As they face declines in performance and either decide to leave or are forced out, doctors tend to go from working at 150-per-cent capacity to zero. As with other professions, it can be hard to ease out of medicine. When we discussed their retirement, many of the people I interviewed had never developed hobbies. Outside of work they may have had families, but they tended not to spend time to developing themselves outside of their work. One of the doctors I interviewed described how he had always been good at what he did, but he had never spent much time golfing, so the idea of doing it in his retirement when he wasn’t very good at it didn’t appeal to him at all.

What about the link you make about being passionate and skilled at something and it being so wrapped up in personal identity? I can see that being an issue in many professions.

One retired CEO I interviewed talked about how his heart fluttered every time he thought about his time being in charge. He described retirement like an extramarital affair – he knew it wasn’t appropriate to keep thinking about his work, but he longed for [people] to let him know he was still desirable. Another CEO I interviewed was forced to retire after her board of directors found out she had been diagnosed with cancer. In describing the transition, she told me she wasn’t sure what was worse, the cancer diagnosis or retirement.

Are there any lessons that can be drawn from those you interviewed about how to approach retirement?

One lesson is not to retire simply based on age. In adulthood, age is really good at predicting your next birthday and a few health issues, but most of the rest is variable. I cannot overstate the point that as a society we must be mindful not to write people off based on their age. For some people, their most meaningful contributions come at later stages in life. We invest a great deal in early career development, so I think employers and organizations should pay more attention to latter career transitions. There would be mutually beneficial returns if we could create more later-career options.

On the more personal level, it’s so important to address financial and health issues and caregiving obligations – and there are lots of great books about those important topics. Also, whenever possible, people ought to try practising whatever they think it means to be retired instead of doing it cold turkey. Not everyone can just gradually retire, but most people can try to channel the energy they devoted to their work to thinking about their goals and how they want to structure the time they have.

And a final lesson is to remember that there are lots of ways to retire.

Here's what happens the day after the clocks change

noreen.rasbach — Mon, 05 Nov 2018 16:34:31 +0000

Here's what happens the day after the clocks change

noreen.rasbach Mon, 11/05/2018 - 11:34

Cutline

The twice-annual time changes affect people similar to the way jet lag does. It’s time to abolish Daylight Saving Time (photo by Sevgi001453d/Pixabay)

Topic

Rotman School of Management

The Conversation

�鶹��Ƶ Mississauga

Workplace

Society has a love/hate relationship with daylight-saving time changes.

At this time of year, many of us delight in the extra hour of sleep that comes with turning the clocks back. However, when spring rolls around, we invariably curse the loss of sleep that accompanies setting the clocks forward.

The decadence of extra snooze time aside, disruptions in sleep can wreak havoc on our minds and bodies. Deviations from our normal sleep habits, known as sleep desynchronosis, can lead to the same sorts of symptoms that arise from jet lag, including reduced attention span, judgment errors and anxiety.

Worse, the evidence shows time changes are associated with an increase in the numbers of car accidents and heart attacks.

Sleepy stock markets

The time changes also have adverse consequences for financial markets. Research I conducted with Mark Kamstra of York University and Maurice Levi of the University of British Columbia found that stock markets tend to draw back significantly on the Monday after a time change, whether the clocks lose or gain an hour.

We studied stock market returns in several countries, some of which implemented time changes on different dates than others, and we found that after controlling for other factors that influence markets, there was a significant drop following the time change.

Of course, what happens on any given day is a combination of many factors, including fundamental news about various companies and the overall economy. And yet we found a statistically significant negative average stock return that was much greater in magnitude than the negative return that typically arises on Mondays. (Other days of the week tend to have positive returns.)

We calculated that, in the United States alone, the average one-day loss on stock markets due to a daylight-saving time change amounted to more than US$30 billion.

When the clocks spring forward or fall back, it causes problems for human health and the economy (photo by Shutterstock)

We surmise that these twice-a-year losses arose as a consequence of investors being more anxious after a sleep disruption and hence more reluctant to buy or to continue holding risky assets than they would be in absence of the shock to their routine.

This stock market example is part of a much larger phenomenon whereby the biological effects of sleep changes have negative implications across the wider economy.

Workplace accidents tend to be greater in both frequency and severity following daylight-saving time changes, which translates into lost wages, higher worker’s compensation costs, higher medical costs, more training costs for replacement workers and reduced productivity overall. On balance, the time changes are expensive for both business and government.

Year-round daylight-saving time

Of course it’s not necessary for a region to adopt standard time in the event that time changes were abolished.

The other obvious alternative is to remain on daylight-saving time year-round – meaning, essentially, that the clocks don’t change twice a year. That option that would arguably lead to relatively better outcomes in terms of financial markets, car accidents, heart attacks and workplace injuries.

Year-round daylight saving time has additional likely advantages. The state of Massachusetts evaluated the relevant academic literature and concluded that reduced street crime would result from remaining on daylight-saving time permanently, including a reduction in robberies due to more daylight in the evening hours and possibly a decrease in the incidence of rape.

When daylight-saving time changes were first being adopted in various jurisdictions more than a century ago, energy cost savings were touted as a major benefit. The details depend on the specific latitude and time zone, but it now appears that these benefits were vastly overstated.

Recent studies have found that adopting daylight-saving time year-round would lead to modest energy savings and perhaps reduced greenhouse gas emissions too.

The implications of year-round daylight-saving time wouldn’t all be sunny, however. An undesirable implication would be darkness during the morning period when children often head to school. For some locations, this may suggest a need to shift school start times later so there is daylight when students are on their morning trek to classes.

Ending daylight saving time changes will mean children will need to start school later. Businesses will therefore need to accommodate parents (photo by Shutterstock)

That would also require work hours to change for parents of younger, school-aged children. They’d have to start later in order to get their kids to school.

But this inconvenience is worth bearing, since child development experts maintain that later school start times are better for kids’ attendance and learning outcomes anyway.

Clocks may soon stop shifting

European citizens recently participated in public consultation about daylight-saving time changes, and the majority of respondents expressed a desire to adopt daylight-saving time year round.

Accordingly, the European Council has recommended that member countries stop adjusting the clocks twice a year and instead remain perpetually “sprung forward.” The matter is working its way through the legislative process.

If adopted by the European Parliament, adherence to this recommendation would be voluntary on the part of individual European nations. But for the first time in decades, the real possibility exists that some major world economies will stop shifting their clocks.

Overall, the time has arrived for us to stop losing sleep over the twice-yearly time changes and to stick with daylight-saving time all year long. May the shift to year-round daylight-saving time everywhere come swiftly, for the good of our health and the economy.

Lisa Kramer is a professor of finance in the department of management at the University of Toronto Mississauga and the Rotman School of Management.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

�鶹��Ƶ experts on cannabis in the workplace: We need an accurate measure of impairment

noreen.rasbach — Wed, 17 Oct 2018 15:15:28 +0000

�鶹��Ƶ experts on cannabis in the workplace: We need an accurate measure of impairment noreen.rasbach Wed, 10/17/2018 - 11:15

Cutline

Police officers in Ottawa and Vancouver face no restrictions on their off-work use of cannabis as long as they are fit for duty, officers in Calgary have been banned from use and in Toronto they face a 28-day abstinence period (photo by Shutterstock)

Topic

Research & Innovation

The Conversation

Workplace

Now that marijuana is legal in Canada for recreational purposes, one question hanging in the air is whether more Canadians will smoke weed on their way to work, or step out to purchase it during their coffee break.

If they do, how will this impact workplace productivity, and health and safety? This question is especially pertinent in occupations involving driving or operating heavy machinery, and those involving law enforcement and the provision of medical care to the public.

The federal government’s legalization of recreational marijuana raises occupational health and safety concerns for many employers – from banks to health authorities to construction companies, airlines to police departments.

Cannabis on campus: �鶹��Ƶ ramps up efforts to educate students, staff and faculty

At the Institute for Work & Health (IWH), we have been reviewing the effects of various drugs that act on the central nervous system – including marijuana – on workplace injuries, deaths and near-misses.

What is striking is how little high-quality evidence there is on the impacts of marijuana in the workplace and how inconsistent the existing data is.

We urgently need high-quality observational research studies to be able to better understand the effects of marijuana on work. We also need to develop an accurate measure of impairment for use in Canadian workplaces.

No published studies on legalization

As far as we’re aware, no published studies to date have examined the impact of recreational marijuana legalization on the workplace.

The only data we’ve seen is from an annual report by a large private drug-testing company in the United States. It found that rates of positive cannabis tests (of urine samples) have increased most markedly in states that have enacted recreational use legislation.

But these rates are based on the number of tests conducted rather than on the number of workers. Therefore, it’s not clear whether this reflects an increase in the use of cannabis in the workplace.

In many workplaces, health and safety is a life and death matter (photo by Shutterstock)

Workplace injuries and accidents

Several studies have examined the impact of marijuana use on workplace outcomes, but with mixed results.

Some have found associations between marijuana use in the workforce and work absenteeism, reduced productivity, job turnover, disciplinary measures, workplace accidents and injuries, unemployment and interpersonal conflict.

However, other studies have found no association with some of these outcomes. Overall, the evidence to date is quite inconsistent.

In 2017, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences published a major report on the health effects of marijuana use, including impacts on injuries and accidents in a workplace setting.

Based on six studies, the review did not find enough evidence to either support or refute a statistical link between marijuana use and occupational injuries or accidents.

No indicator for acute impairment

Some of the inconsistency in the research that does exist may be due to differences in study designs and methodologies and difficulties in conducting this type of research.

Also, much of the evidence in this area comes from post-incident investigations, where the workers involved are tested for marijuana or other drugs following a workplace incident.

These kinds of cases tend to be more publicized, but rigorous research with control groups (i.e., those who did not have an accident) is needed to understand whether there are more accidents among those using marijuana compared to those who are not.

And even though workers may test positive for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in their urine, that doesn’t necessarily mean they were impaired at the time of the accident. Marijuana remains in the system for quite some time. So someone can use marijuana on Friday night and come into work on Monday no longer impaired, yet produce positive urine tests for marijuana use.

That said, no consensus currently exists around the length of time someone should wait between consuming cannabis and engaging in safety-sensitive work, giving rise to employer concerns about the timing of off-work consumption.

The Lower-Risk Cannabis Use guidelines for Canada suggest users wait six hours or even longer before driving or operating machinery. More recently, the Occupational and Environmental Medicine Association of Canada released a position statement on cannabis use in safety-sensitive work, recommending a wait time of at least 24 hours before engaging in safety-sensitive work.

On construction sites, the capacity of employees to fulfil their work safely is of paramount importance (photo by Shutterstock)

But the lack of clear evidence around the issue of impairment has led to the emergence of vastly different policies from employers across Canada. For instance, whereas police officers in Ottawa and Vancouver face no restrictions on their off-work use as long as they are fit for duty when they show up for work, officers in Calgary have been banned outright from using cannabis and Toronto officers face a 28-day abstinence period.

Likewise, everyone working in safety-critical areas at Air Canada and WestJet, a broad group comprising flight and cabin crew members, aircraft maintenance engineers and flight dispatchers, are prohibited from using cannabis whether on- or off-duty.

New research directions

We have some, but limited, data on the extent of workplace cannabis use in Canada (e.g. during work, on breaks and in the hours prior to a work shift). According to 2015 data from Statistics Canada’s Canadian Alcohol and Drug Use Monitoring Survey, 15.5 per cent of the working population report using cannabis in the previous 12 months. What’s more, 6.4 per cent of the working population report using cannabis once a week or more.

According to Health Canada’s 2017 Canadian Cannabis Survey, 21.5 per cent of cannabis users report using cannabis to get high before or at work in the previous year, including 7.7 per cent who report weekly or daily use before or at work.

To delve deeper into the issue, we at the Institute for Work & Health have recently conducted a survey of 2,000 Canadian workers, with funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

We measured the current magnitude of cannabis consumption at work, reasons for workplace use, perceptions of its effects on work and availability in the workplace. Analysis is under way and early results will be shared later this year. The results will importantly provide a starting point for monitoring the long-term impact of legalization on workplace health and safety issues.

With this survey, which was completed in June 2018, we now have a pre-legalization baseline upon which future population-level surveys of habits and attitudes around the use of cannabis at work can be analyzed.

We also have a cohort that can potentially take part in a longitudinal observational study. That would allow us to understand the impact of this major policy change at an individual level. The answers that come out of that research may point the way to new workplace programs and policies to influence individuals’ decisions on cannabis use at work.

An earlier Q & A version of this story was previously published in At Work.

Andrea Furlan is an associate professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and a scientist at the Institute for Work and Health. Nancy Carnide is a �鶹��Ƶ post-doctoral researcher at the Institute for Work & Health.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

When is #MeToo coming to my workplace? �鶹��Ƶ expert on eight things you can do now

Christopher.Sorensen — Wed, 11 Jul 2018 15:14:36 +0000

When is #MeToo coming to my workplace? �鶹��Ƶ expert on eight things you can do now Christopher.Sorensen Wed, 07/11/2018 - 11:14

Cutline

Activists participate in the Take Back The Workplace March and #MeToo Survivors March & Rally on November 12, 2017 in Hollywood, California. (Photo by Sarah Morris/Getty Images)

Judith Taylor

Topic

Global Lens

Faculty of Arts & Science

Sociology

The Conversation

Women and Gender Studies

Workplace

As a sociologist who studies feminist activism, I often get asked when and how the #MeToo movement is going to trickle down. This is a fair question, and not one easy to answer.

We know social movement ideas often become part of the cultural fabric of the everyday, but how they get there, and how long they percolate as they make their way, varies. The #MeToo movement has rocked many workplaces: Actors, artists, journalists, politicians, chefs, corporate executives have all been felled for poor behaviour.

Women globally have experienced vicarious justice learning about the courage of the women who have come forward, and the innovativeness of Tarana Burke, the New York community organizer who coined the term #MeToo.

Each month, new revelations roll out, almost timed, featuring another high-profile man with abusive tendencies. These revelations are often based on expensive and expert reporting, and can be deeply educational and cathartic.

But it’s eerie for many women to continue in their familiar work-a-day capacities, where the justice has not yet trickled sideways, or down. Many have worked at their organizations for decades and have witnessed casual and concerted sexual harassment, and in some cases assault.

Others have been subject to less direct aggression, but still must contend with a toxic workplace of sexual insult and innuendo, riven with bad feelings.

Covert resistance

Most women are not heartened by the idea of trickle-down justice, and they feel, rightly, that it is not going to come to them. They are the sociologists of their own lives, recounting for me in unionized and non-unionized settings, that speaking out against harassment doesn’t serve a victim well. These have been informal admissions made to me as a public feminist.

From these informal stories, I understand everyday people to be master strategists – opting for schedule shifts that enable them to steer clear of known harassers, trying not to be in the elevator or alone with or next to the same, keeping their heads down and not making eye contact, knowing when to be direct and when to say nothing, laughing insults off, holding their breaths when leering, expectant men walk by their offices, pulling out file drawers to prevent harassers from coming into their personal space, eating lunch at their desks, never going for drinks on Thursdays with the rest of the crew, exiting the building to a back alley to avoid a co-worker waiting at the front door to walk with them to the subway.

I believe women share these tactics with me because #MeToo has made them conscious and proud of their own survival skills. I admire these strategies and, through listening to them, have realized that for many women work is often video game-like, as they tiptoe, run, duck and hide, to avoid harm.

Fear reprisals

The #MeToo movement has changed the air in some places of work, but led to recourse in far fewer. Most women workers cannot afford a trial, and don’t want a soul-killing mandatory training module on sexual harassment in their divisions.

Many have confessed to me that a meeting with higher-ups would ensure that, within days, HR would be coming with a box and a five-minute timer to evacuate the complaint-maker from her desk.

How do the great majority of working women reckon with #MeToo when there will be no confrontation, revelation or watershed moment for them?

Academics, journalists, teachers, social workers and psychologists have experienced a notable outpouring of questions and concerns, but this is not a professional moment – this is a people’s moment to decide what is no longer OK, partly because it’s illegal, partly because it violates workplace policy and mostly because harassment is soul-killing.

While researchers have shown formal reporting mechanisms to be often disappointing, other scholars show that everyday referencing of social movements, and allying with them, makes women feel stronger and more capable of refusing sexism.

The #MeToo movement won’t make a tsunami-level wave in every place of work. But with small gestures, we can remove the sandbags from the thresholds of our doors, open the windows and invite something of the force of that water to trickle in. Inviting the water in while small may feel more energizing than wondering whether, and when, it might come.

Eight things you can do about a toxic work environment

We have to commit to ending this toxic culture. Here are eight suggestions for how to do it:

If you have sexually harassed or belittled people you work with, meditate on what you have done or are doing, and stop. If you can’t control your own toxic impulses, get professional help or quit.
Everyone should search on the Internet: “What is professional workplace behaviour?” Read the top 10 sites that come up. Other helpful sites will pop up including, “Top ten things not to do at work.” Print them out. Follow them.
Read federal law on harassment and safety in the workplace.
Read your employer’s guidelines on harassment and safety in the workplace.
If you see harassment, intervene .
If you are experiencing harassment, do your research. Educate yourself on the help you can access: Non-profit, governmental, private sector and popular advice is available, which will give you options and make you feel less alone.
Ask management for an equality audit of your workplace. Questions to ask include: How are we doing with homophobia, racism and sexism as these relate to mentoring, advancement, leadership and decision-making?
Gather together colleagues you trust to write a concise letter stating that, in your place of work, harassment has happened, and that you’d like everyone to commit to a new awareness of gender dynamics in the workplace. You can circulate the letter, tack it to the bulletin board, leave it in the mailroom. This is subversive, and there might be blowback, so folks have to think about whether they want to be so direct and deal with the consequences. On the other hand, colleagues may be grateful for your leadership.

Let’s assume going forward that those among us who have been toxic want to let that go. Those among us who are easy targets are going to start reading up on rights and recording bad behaviour.

The rest of us are going to try our best to create a new normal and pay attention so we don’t look like we have better things to do when people get hurt, other than to help them. It might be awkward while some people adjust. Awkward is a small price.

Judith Taylor is an associate professor in the department of sociology at the University of Toronto.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Industrial Relations & Human Resources, Centre for

sgupta — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 20:47:15 +0000

Industrial Relations & Human Resources, Centre for sgupta Thu, 01/07/2016 - 15:47

URL

https://www.cirhr.utoronto.ca/

Study of RCMP officers shows importance of empathy, good relationships at work

sgupta — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 13:27:59 +0000

Study of RCMP officers shows importance of empathy, good relationships at work sgupta Wed, 08/26/2015 - 09:27

Cutline

(photo by GRC/RCMP via flickr)

Don Campbell

Author legacy

Don Campbell

Topic

Breaking Research

Workplace

The future of work will hit vulnerable people the hardest: �鶹��Ƶ expert

Fewer opportunities

Racial disparity

Critical thinking skills

Minimizing shocks and stresses

�鶹��Ƶ study finds extroverts enjoy advantages in the workplace

What happens when high achievers retire? This �鶹��Ƶ expert tackles subject in new book

Here's what happens the day after the clocks change

Sleepy stock markets

Year-round daylight-saving time

Clocks may soon stop shifting

�鶹��Ƶ experts on cannabis in the workplace: We need an accurate measure of impairment

Cannabis on campus: �鶹��Ƶ ramps up efforts to educate students, staff and faculty

No published studies on legalization

Workplace injuries and accidents

No indicator for acute impairment

New research directions

When is #MeToo coming to my workplace? �鶹��Ƶ expert on eight things you can do now

Covert resistance

Fear reprisals

Eight things you can do about a toxic work environment

Industrial Relations & Human Resources, Centre for

Tags

Study of RCMP officers shows importance of empathy, good relationships at work