ReportWire

Tag: employee survey

  • How Your Company Can Reduce Revenge Quitting

    The growing levels of stress and distrust in the workforce are starting to show up in the number of people who plan to vote with their feet and leave their jobs abruptly. New data shows a growing number of disgruntled employees now prefer to exact workplace payback sooner than later. A recent survey found large numbers of people saying they’d either abruptly quit their jobs to protest their own poor treatment, or that they approved of former colleagues they’d watched doing so.

    The revenge quitting phenomenon isn’t new, but survey data by job posting site Monster suggests it’s on the rise. Respondents noted an uptick in employees angered by one or more workplace factors unexpectedly resigning their positions and storming away, often loudly airing recriminations about their old jobs. Nearly half, or 47 percent, of the 3,600 people Monster polled this year said they’d up and quit in that way — intentionally leaving managers and colleagues both short-handed and flustered.

    That marked a considerable increase over the 17 percent of respondents to a January survey by tech advice platform Software Finder who admitted having walked off a job in that disgruntled fashion. Perhaps just as dangerous for business owners who value staff stability, even higher numbers of poll participants voiced support of revenge quitting.

    Fully 57 percent of Monster respondents said they’d observed at least one co-worker dramatically bolt from their job, with 34 percent saying they’d seen between two and six colleagues abruptly slam the door that way. Another 87 percent of participants said they considered the move justified in protesting poor workplace environments.

    Leading reasons cited for undertaking the resign, rant, and run approach were toxic work environments, poor management or leadership, feeling disrespected or undervalued, and unmet promises or expectations. Bad pay and benefits often intensified the other complaints.

    But Monster career expert Vicki Salemi tells Inc. that employers aren’t fated to suffer revenge quitting theatrics, or the disruptions that inflict on staff focus, unity, and productivity. In fact, she urges business leaders to take steps to defuse those situations before they explode.

    “There’s an opportunity for employers to get ahead of revenge quitting not only for the sake of reducing turnover, but in an effort to cultivate a workplace where workers feel highly satisfied, productive, valued, and engaged,” Salemi said in emailed comments about the survey. “If they wait until workers are beyond disgruntled and abruptly leave, it’s often too late.”

    The consequences of letting that happen, she added, make efforts to prevent those explosions and preserve workplace atmosphere, stability, and productivity far less costly by comparison.

    “Workers have already quit, morale is low, and existing workers have an instantly increased workload,” she says of post-revenge quitting effects. “Then, externally word of mouth travels fast, and this creates challenges for the recruiting team to position the employer as an employer that’s best in class.”

    So what can employers do to reduce the odds of workers quitting while creating scenes that reach the histrionic heights of high drama.

    Among the primary measures survey respondents cited as ways employers can avoid vindictive, high-octane resignations include making sure staff feel work environments are safe and respectful, and training managers to lead with empathy and clarity. Other suggestions were to regularly recognize and reward staffers’ contributions, and provide competitive pay and clear career paths.

    “Considering 63 percent of workers in Monster’s research from earlier this year said better workplace culture could have prevented (revenge quitting), this is a silver lining,” Salemi said, urging employers to regularly question whether employees are as happy at work as they may appear. “Just because workers haven’t resigned, especially to the extreme of revenge quitting, doesn’t mean it’s a healthy workplace.”

    There’s no exact date or event that’s been identified as the advent of revenge quitting. But Salemi said it’s a now post-pandemic phenomenon that’s unlikely to go away on its own, along with other big changes in workplace attitudes since 2020.

    “Employees have become more focused on their mental health,” she said. “If a job and/or boss are toxic, anecdotally they seem more likely to quit now than in pre-pandemic times. Plus, the stigma of job hopping isn’t much of an issue anymore.”

    But since revenge quitting and the motivations driving it are now professional realities, Salemi advises employers to take a wider view toward addressing complaints of departing workers. By admitting things in the workplace aren’t all perfect, she says, business’s leaders can start the process of improving the environment for remaining employees, and themselves.

    “Since it all depends on a variety of factors, there may be nuggets of truth behind (all) revenge quit situation(s),” Salemi noted. “For instance, if there’s a lack of respect and workers feel undervalued, leaders should make sure they immediately start recognizing employees… and it won’t cost the company a dime! Here are some examples: say thank you, praise workers during meetings (make sure you treat everyone equally) by recognizing a recent accomplishment, ask them if they need anything because you have their back.”

    Those may seem like small things, but if pursued and broadened they’re likely to avert most revenge quitting, Salemi said. And that, in turn, will spare employers and remaining workers alike the emotional and professional destabilization of the divisive, spite-driven departures.

    The final deadline for the 2026 Inc. Regionals Awards is Friday, December 12, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply now.

    Bruce Crumley

    Source link

  • Don’t Skimp on Your Holiday Office Party. Employees Want Them More Than Ever

    Pandemic-era social distancing requirements, ongoing remote working arrangements, and considerable employee lifestyle changes over the past five years have not been kind to traditional workplace celebrations. Consequently, many companies considerably scaled back, or entirely dropped the once inevitable office holiday party. Now, it may be staging a comeback. Surveys suggest 2025 may mark the return of year-end workplace fetes as an entrenched and beloved seasonal custom, as large majorities of both employers and workers are already planning for the festivities

    While after-work drinks, meals, and even offsite events remain important team-building activities, the office holiday party has struggled to regain former status as a red-letter date on the workplace calendar. But according to the self-described “food tech platform” ezCater, year-end company knees-ups are making a major comeback in 2025. Its survey of over 1,600 employees and business executives found 82 percent of workers said they plan on attending their business’s seasonal bash this year, well up from 70 percent in 2024.

    Business owners are also shaking off any pandemic era Scrooge-esque attitudes toward holiday office festivities. Fully 92 percent of responding employers said they plan to commit significant funds to those celebrations, with 51 percent saying they’ll spend more on them in 2025 than last year. The survey also found the average business budgets for office holiday party food and drinks will increase by 31 percent over 2024, rising to nearly $60 per participant.

    Why go to that expense and bother to organize year-end office merry-making that often elicited groans from pre-pandemic era holdouts, and was virtually eliminated from workplaces as Covid spread?

    On the practical side, both employers and staff benefit from the increased bonding that 83 percent of survey respondents said holiday office events encourage. Another 80 percent of participants said they believed year-end gatherings are even more effective in bringing coworkers and managers closer than before the pandemic — especially amid enduring remote and hybrid work arrangements.

    Indeed, nearly a third of all respondents working under hybrid rules conditions said they had wound up feeling they’d missed out on something good after deciding not to attend year-end workplace fetes in recent years. They may have had good reason for thinking so. Fully 55 percent of survey participants said they were looking forward to this year’s office party for the non-business, informal socializing and friendship-forging opportunities those present. In that way, personal enjoyment supports professional wellbeing and unity — and vice versa.

    “The workplace holiday party is critical for strengthening team connection and morale, especially for hybrid and remote teams,” said ezCater’s vice president of people Robert Kaskel in comments announcing the results. “In an increasingly disconnected world, companies should maximize these festive opportunities, because ultimately, stronger connections result in higher job satisfaction, productivity, and retention.”

    But not all people feel quite as enthusiastic for their impending annual office gatherings.

    Nearly half, or 45 percent of survey respondents admitted to getting stressed about attending the functions, with younger workers the most likely to feel that anxiety. Still, who among us hasn’t at some point also dreaded facing what 60 percent of Gen Zers cited as their most feared office party scenario — finding themselves standing alone with nobody to talk to?

    Other year-end work party situations that worried survey respondents included being stuck in unwanted conversations, saying something to a manager they’d regret, and navigating hot or divisive topics during exchanges with colleagues.

    To ensure maximum employee pleasure — and attendance — employers may want to tailor their holiday workplace party to participants’ stated preferences. Those included planning the gatherings on Fridays, in December rather than November, and scheduling them in the afternoon instead of evenings.

    Respondents also favored holding the festivities in events spaces rather than workplaces, using buffet-style food layouts, and allowing workers to bring a guest of their own choosing.

    Perhaps understanding that last desire, 77 percent of business executives who answered the survey said they’re making that “plus-one” allowance for 2025 holiday parties — up from 16 percent last year. Clearly, even bosses don’t like seeing people standing alone with nobody to talk to.

    The final deadline for the 2026 Inc. Regionals Awards is Friday, December 12, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply now.

    Bruce Crumley

    Source link

  • How AI Training Can Lead to Productivity Gains

    While most U.S. businesses are already using artificial intelligence tools in their workplaces, their adoption rates and productivity increases vary greatly. New research shows how valuable those efficiency increases can be when employers give their full support to staff, including properly focused training on new AI tools. It also shows how the ineffective or disorganized introduction of these apps often undermines their potential gains.

    As noted in recent Inc. reports, studies show a majority of global employees aren’t wasting time worrying about AI taking over their jobs, and have instead actively learned to use the tech to enhance the value of their work. A new global survey of nearly 3,250 workers and executives by the London School of Economics’ Inclusion Initiative along with business consultancy Protiviti, quantifies the efficiency gains AI offers. It found that on average, employees save 7.5 hours per week — nearly a full workday — by using apps to automate tasks. The report calculated that by redeploying that extra time for other work, each respondent generated about $18,000 in additional annual productivity for their companies.

    Alas, wasn’t the only lesson for business owners. The study also warned that a large gap exists between the AI-powered productivity increases and the level of support they’re offering staff to use most effectively.

    For starters, 68 percent of employees who answered the survey said they’d received no AI training in the previous 12 months. That was determined to have influenced both adoption rates, and efficiency gains made using the tech. Indeed, fully 93 percent of respondents who’d gotten that instruction reported regularly turning to apps for their work, versus only 57 percent who hadn’t been given that support.

    Meanwhile, the time saved by participants who said they’d received instruction on AI was double that of people who hadn’t. Concretely, 11 extra hours freed up each week to redirect to more productive tasks, versus five hours for people who used the tech without training. According to Grace Lordan, founding director of The Inclusion Initiative and the study’s research lead, those differences offer an obvious message to employers seeking efficiency gains through AI.

    “For business leaders, the priority is clear: Closing the AI training gap is one of the fastest ways to unlock measurable return,” Lordan said in comments accompanying the findings. “Equipping employees with the right skills doesn’t just improve individual productivity — it drives sharper decision-making, accelerates innovation and creates stronger overall performance. In an environment where every efficiency counts, organizations that act now will set themselves apart from those still waiting on the sidelines.”

    Getting all generational workplace members into that game on a more level field is also essential.

    While the survey found 82 percent of Gen Z respondents said they used AI for work, the rate dropped to 52 percent of Baby Boomers. Similarly, about half of Gen Z participants said they were involved in developing AI and its use across the workplace, compared to about 30 percent of Gen Z and Boomers combined.

    In line with those findings, the survey also showed nearly twice as many younger employers received AI training during the previous 12 months than older colleagues. That discrepancy was also reflected in the performance of workplace teams that were made up of people of different age cohorts. About 77 percent of working groups with higher degrees of generational diversity reported regular productivity gains, compared to 66 percent with lower age diversity.

    In other words, survey authors said, companies that both encourage AI use and train all workplace members to use those tools are likely to see higher increases in overall productivity — as well as better adoption rates and efficiency gains by employees of all generations.

    “AI isn’t just another tool for the workplace — it’s a catalyst for rethinking how they organize, lead and empower their people,” said Protiviti global leader of people and change Fran Maxwell. “The organizations that will benefit the most are those that embed AI into everyday workflows, redesign roles to focus on higher-value work, and give employees the confidence to experiment. This research shows that inclusive adoption across all generations doesn’t just improve productivity — it prepares companies for the next wave of change.”

    The early-rate deadline for the 2026 Inc. Regionals Awards is Friday, November 14, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply now.

    Bruce Crumley

    Source link

  • Most Gen-Z Employees See Traditional Career Paths Coming to an End

    Many employers and co-workers have voiced exasperation at Gen-Zers’ reputed resistance—if not defiance—to conforming with traditional workplace roles and demands. New data indicates the workforce’s youngest members not only don’t plan on bending to that criticism, but even view the long-held business models those gripes are based on as doomed.

    That view of traditional work and career paradigms being destined for the ash pile of history appears to explain many why many Gen-Zers are behaving in ways that alternatively confuse and annoy older colleagues. According to the latest Next Gen of Work report by freelance job platform Fiverr, its survey of 12,000 workers born between 1995 and 2012 found a majority saying the model of working one’s way through the corporate ranks will soon be sleeping with the fishes alongside cradle-to-grave employment. That view explains why many cohort members are not only disinclined to comply with workplace expectations and demands, but think conforming to a mold in order to keep a long-term job has become a road to nowhere.

    As a result, a mere 18 percent of Gen-Z respondents cited ascending a profession with a single employer as a smart way of getting ahead in the world. Bolder still, over half of survey participants—or 54 percent of the total—predicted traditional employment itself will become obsolete in coming years. And only 14 percent of Gen-Zers questioned listed working for a well-known corporation as one of their career ambitions—furthering the cohort’s break with the tenets that dominated post-war employment.

    Not illogically, many Gen-Zers who view career paths that older generations adhered to as living on borrowed time are instead creating alternatives to the 9-to-5, five-day week, working for a single employer models. As part of that, many of them are turning to income stacking—or generating multiple sources of revenue by juggling several professional activities. Fully 67 percent of Fiverr survey participants said they considered having an array of revenue sources as essential to attaining financial security.

    But in addition to Gen-Zers’ (in)famous determination to blaze their own trails tailored to their personal interests—often at the expense of workplace conformity and harmony—there’s another factor driving their multi-activity alternative. The survey found many cohort members are haunted by worries that a single job and income won’t allow them to get by.

    “Faced with economic uncertainty, Gen Z is experiencing what we’re calling ‘single-paycheck panic’—they’re diversifying income streams because relying on one job feels too risky,” said Michelle Baltrusitis, Fiverr’s associate director of community and social impact in comments on the survey results. “Instead of waiting for stability, they’re betting on themselves by embracing freelancing and building financial resilience as the smarter path forward.”

    But Baltrusitis stresses that “Gen Z isn’t rejecting work, they’re redefining it.” The survey found respondents often start doing that even before quitting the full-time jobs they consider doomed. Nearly 40 percent of survey participants said they had or currently were taking on freelancing work in addition to 9-to-5 jobs they held down.

    The reason for that transitioning? Nearly half of respondents cited not making enough money as their biggest career worry. In addition to whatever presumably insufficient salaries they were earning from full-time positions, many Gen-Z survey participants said external costs like high rents, increasing prices, and paying off student loans have made working just one job too risky.

    And as they shift from a single job to the independence of juggling multiple gigs full-time, a large portion of Gen-Zers are adapting their use of artificial intelligence at work in ways that are also beneficial to their outside activities. Nearly 60 percent of respondents said they trust the tech to assume some of their professional responsibilities. Meanwhile, 20 percent or more of survey participants said they used apps for help in brainstorming their multiplying workflows, generating content, and improving creative ideas.

    But even as they define what they consider post-modern work paradigms, the survey found Gen-Zers remained conscious of—and a bit hacked off by—the ways former and future co-workers viewed them.

    Nearly a quarter of respondents said older colleagues were off base in considering members of the younger cohort as lazy. As an apparent reflection of their willingness to toil away alongside previous generations, just 17 percent of respondents listed early retirement as a career ambition.

    That attitude may well earn Gen-Zers more respect from older colleagues, but they’d get even more props—plus heartfelt thanks—if they’d do something about the stare.

    Bruce Crumley

    Source link

  • 4 Tips for Holding Meetings Without Cutting Productivity

    Workplace complaints about seemingly incessant meetings are as common as honking horns during traffic jams, or passenger protests over cancelled flights. But new survey data gives more weight to peoples’ grousing about those frequent business huddles, quantifying how many are considered an utter waste of time — and the thousands of dollars in productivity losses they’re costing employers.

    The cautionary contained in those statistics was the big takeaway from a new study of 1,000 U.S. employees by tech product advisory platform Software Finder. It found that the frequency of either in-person or online work meetings led 72 percent of respondents to complain of chronic fatigue or burnout in dealing with them. Perhaps even more troubling for business owners, participants said nearly half, or 46 percent of all staff, customer, or even one-to-one meetings with managers were “unnecessary or unproductive” — that is, wasted time.

    The sheer number of today’s workplace meetings increases the likelihood of participants falling prey to burnout. The survey found the average respondent has to attend five weekly meetings that together eat up six hours of their work week. But 16 percent of participants reported regularly having to attend 10 or more meetings each week, and 19 percent saying those lasted a total of 10 hours or more.

    As a result, Software Finder’s survey found U.S. “employees estimated wasting 146 hours annually in meetings that don’t add value.” The company’s report on the results said that wasted time translated into productivity losses of around $6,280 each year per worker involved.

    Those losses rose to $9,825 for tech businesses and $8,014 for financial companies, whose higher salaries make every hour employees spent idling in unnecessary gatherings more costly. That waste similarly grew with the increasing size of companies involved, and the rank of employees participating in meetings.

    So what can employers do to cut down on time and money lost on unproductive meetings, yet still get staff together to more effectively pursue company objectives?

    A first move could be to decrease or discourage the specific kinds of meetings that survey respondents called the biggest time wasters. Those were led by status updates, all-hands or town halls, brainstorming, project kickoffs, and one-to-one consulting between workers and their manager.

    Another remedial effort would be to encourage people leading meetings to schedule them during times the survey found to be the least disruptive.

    Nearly a third of respondents said the best period for those were Monday mornings, with 40 percent saying huddles during that slot were also the most productive. Perhaps not surprisingly, participants called Fridays — especially in the afternoon — the most disruptive and least effective time to gather teams together.

    Another tip for employers is to prioritize in-person meetings over online alternatives — which 49 percent of participants called more draining than face-to-face gatherings.

    Finally, in an effort to minimize wasted time, business owners and managers holding meetings should read the room and gauge how much people are participating — or more frequently, not.

    According to the Software Finder survey, fully 85 percent of respondents said they’ve remained silent during meetings they regarded as wastes of time. The biggest reasons cited by employees who stay mum were impressions the gathering was entirely performative in the first place; multitasking on more productive work projects; and feeling their input wouldn’t be valued anyway.

    In other words, the Software Finder survey report said, business owners can do themselves and their employees a favor — and avoid frittering thousands of productivity dollars away — by staying attentive to what kind of meetings workers consider worth holding, and the times when those work best.

    “Meeting fatigue is eating up time, money, and energy,” the report’s conclusion warned. “Poorly planned meetings lead to wasted hours and disengaged teams, and the costs add up fast. But it doesn’t have to be the norm. Listening to what employees need and rethinking how meetings happen can turn things around. Cutting even one off the calendar can mean less burnout and more focus.”

    Bruce Crumley

    Source link

  • To Increase Your Company’s Productivity, Make Sure Everyone Eats Lunch

    The spreading of artificial intelligence applications in U.S. workplaces is only the most recent method employers are using to increase productivity. Now, new data is proposing a decidedly lower-tech manner of achieving similar results in improving employee focus, happiness, and performance: Just make sure they’re eating lunch.

    The business benefits of workers getting their midday chow became clear in a survey of 1,000 full-time employees by corporate food provider ezCater. It found that 88 percent of respondents said that not eating lunch caused their job performance to dip. Around 43 percent of people skipping the noon meal blamed that slumping output on needing more time to complete tasks on an empty stomach, with 39 percent saying the distraction led them to make more mistakes.

    The consequences of those afternoon productivity declines are probably affecting workplaces more than employers suspect. About 51 percent of survey participants said they skip lunch at least once during the workweek, and 33 percent said they go without twice a week or more.

    One reason for that increasing lunchlessness is how inflation is hitting workers’ eating habits as hard as it’s pinching their wallets.

    Whether it’s brown-bagged from home or bought from a restaurant or deli, the average employee now spends $108.68 per week on lunches, a jump of more than 20 percent from last year. Those higher costs led 74 percent of survey participants to say they’d adjusted their eating habits to save money.

    But there are other reasons respondents said they go without lunch. Time restrictions from heavy workloads was one often-cited factor, as was the increase in meetings scheduled over the noon hour. Many other workers said they skipped the meal out of worries managers might frown on their taking a break, with Gen-Zers particularly concerned.

    “When your youngest employees feel guilty about taking their lunch break, it’s a big red flag,” said ezCater vice president of people Robert Kaskel in comments on the findings. “Pair this lunch guilt with employees’ tendency to skip lunch for short-term productivity gains and business leaders have a performance and burnout issue on their hands.”

    Another negative result of employees skipping lunch is what the ezCater report on the survey called workplace “hanger.” That feeling of irritability, even anger when hunger starts gnawing at employees also eats away at their focus and enthusiasm, and even creates tensions between colleagues.

    Nearly 85 percent of respondents reported battling “hanger” at least once each week. That was only slightly more than the 82 percent who said they looked forward to their lunch break, and then felt disappointed and grumpy when they had to pass it up.

    “Our data shows that hangry workers are bad for business: Forty-three percent take longer to complete tasks, 38 percent report being blunt with colleagues, and 25 percent avoid interacting with their peers,” Kaskel said.

    But a rising number of employees have found a solution to both fulfill their lunching desires, and deal with workloads or other obligations getting in the way of those. Nearly two-thirds of respondents said they now tuck into a midday meal during meetings scheduled over the noon hour, with half of those saying they do so every week.

    That compromise allows workers to enjoy the lunches they’ve been thinking about all morning, and provides employers the better performance benefits from employees working on full stomachs.

    What’s the downside for companies in that? Many survey participants said having to work while they eat also increases their appetite for bosses providing and paying for those working meals. Meaning that for business owners, there’s still no such thing as a free lunch.

    Bruce Crumley

    Source link

  • Why a Quarter of Employees Don’t Take Any Company-Provided PTO

    If a sizeable portion of your workplace seems to be dragging a bit these days, there’s a good reason why many staffers may be feeling fatigued. New data indicates a full quarter of U.S. employees took no personal time off (PTO) last year to unplug from work and recharge their batteries. Meanwhile, a third of workers who did merely caught up on their sleep.

    It remains a source of astonishment in many countries — and in some cases smug superiority — that even a quarter of the way into the 21st century, the U.S. remains the only advanced economy that doesn’t guarantee a minimum number of employee vacation days. Often overlooked in that gloating is that most American employers voluntarily provide PTO and most national holidays off to their workers. In recent years, that’s allowed U.S. employees to take an average 10 and 14 days annually, according to most estimates — even if that falls well short of 42 days in France, 36 in Spain, 30 in Australia, and 25 in Canada.

    But in spite of employers’ efforts to provide paid leisure time to staff, a little more than 30 percent of the workforce still has no access to PTO. Now, new survey data from remote job listing site Flexjobs finds that nearly a quarter of employees, or 23 percent of the 3,063 people it questioned didn’t take a single day off during the last year.

    The reasons? Even though 82 percent of those respondents said their employer provided paid time off, many failed to take some or all of those days “due to heavy workloads, manager expectations, and unsupportive company cultures,” the report said.

    Concretely, 43 percent of respondents said they had too much work to take PTO days, with 30 percent saying stepping away from the office risked them falling behind tasks they’d managed to keep pace with. Nearly 30 percent of survey participants said they’d feel too guilty, or be worried about looking like a slacker by going on vacation.

    More problematic was the 19 percent of respondents who said they didn’t dare take PTO in a workplace that “clearly doesn’t support taking time off.” That pressure dissuading employees from taking an extended break from work was felt in other ways as well.

    A quarter of survey participants said their managers discouraged them from taking a full week off, resulting in 42 percent of respondents saying they’d limited total PTO they took in the last year to between one and 10 days.

    “Most employees have some form of paid time off, but there’s a big difference between a company that offers this benefit and one that actually encourages workers to use it,” said Flexjobs career expert Toni Frana in comments accompanying the survey’s results. “Without a company culture that supports rest, many workers feel they can’t really step away without risking their professional reputation.”

    Despite those concerns, it’s clear most U.S. employers aren’t mistreating their workers in Miranda Priestly’s ‘The Devil Wears Prada’ fashion.

    Eighteen percent of survey participants said they took more than 15 days of PTO during the last year, and nearly the same number stepped away from work for 11 to 15 days. That may not match the six weeks — plus 11 national holidays — employees in France get annually, but it beats the five paid days workers in Nigeria have free each year.

    So how are U.S. workers who do take PTO spending that leisure time? While a majority still take to the beach, mountains, or global tourist destinations, a recent survey of 1,200 employees by mattress company Amerisleep found over a third use vacation time to just sleep.

    Its polling found 37 percent of respondents said they’ve used PTO days primarily to catch up on their shuteye. At 43 percent Millennials were the most likely to spend time off hitting the hay, followed by 34 percent of Gen Xers, 33 percent of Gen Z, and 20 percent of Boomers.

    That PTO slumber option also has the advantage of economizing the heavy costs of gas, airfare, and lodging that more traditional vacations require. On the down side, it also virtually eliminates the opportunity to cross paths with all those French and Spanish people on perpetual holiday.

    Bruce Crumley

    Source link

  • Research Shows That Political Talk Is Tanking Workplace Harmony. Here’s How Leaders Can Fix It

    In a world where political disagreements have ripped friendships, and even families asunder, it isn’t surprising similarly acrimonious debate also arises in the workplace. In fact, those verbal dustups between coworkers have apparently broken out enough that a majority of employees now say they don’t want to hear any discussion of politics while on job.

    That was the main finding in the recently published “Navigating Politics in the Workplace” report by job posting site Monster. Its survey of 900 U.S. employees found 60 percent of respondents saying discussions about politics at work should be completely avoided. Another 68 percent said those exchanges left them feeling uncomfortable, despite 67 percent acknowledging they’d previously shared their political beliefs with coworkers. Yet 59 percent of participants said they thought having those exchanges while on the job risk negatively affecting their careers.

    What’s more, 14 percent of respondents said they dreaded workplace discussion about politics so much they’d rather get a tooth drilled than join them. What’s next — ducking out of an office discussion about religion to have an appendix removed, without anesthesia?

    In addition to the anger and accusations political exchanges can generate, there are other reasons why avoiding them at work may be wise. While 64 percent of respondents said they generally respect their coworkers’ political opinions, a third admitted they’ve formed negative views about colleagues after hearing them at the office.

    That can’t be good — and those reactions aren’t always reserved for workplace peers, either. Just over half of survey participants said they’d consider quitting their job if their employer staked out political positions they disagreed with.

    Inc.com columnist Alison Green has tracked the issue for years. She suggests people set conversational boundaries when political talk makes them uncomfortable, and taking the issue to management if it persists. It’s bad for company culture, whether it happens on the shop floor or the boardroom.

    But whether those political differences are with bosses or coworkers, the bad feelings that often arise from them frequently undermine staff harmony and stability.

    “These findings align with research from the Pew Research Center, which emphasizes that workplace culture significantly influences employee satisfaction and retention,” analysis of the Monster survey said. “Political discussions in the workplace can be sensitive and require careful handling to maintain a respectful and inclusive environment.”

    But workplace managers should also be aware and respectful of what the survey said was the desire of most survey participants to keep political talk entirely out of the workplace. But in addition to that not always being the case, 67 percent of respondents said they’d actually been pressured to join discussions about politics on the job.

    Of those that had, 40 percent of respondents said they’d felt that coercion during informal conversations with coworkers, 15 percent said it had occurred during meetings, and 11 percent reported it’d happened in discussion or reviews managers or supervisors. Sometimes the pressure came from outside the company, with 11 percent of survey participants saying they’d been dragged into political discussions with clients or vendors.

    The widespread aversion to talking politics in the workplace comes at a particularly confusing and fraught time for companies and their employees. Both rules and attitudes are shifting rapidly in the public and private sectors alike.

    For example, the Trump administration in July released guidelines ending longstanding federal practices intended to separate workplace affairs of church and state. Under those changes, public employees are now allowed to pray, display religious symbols, and even actively proselytize while at work, in sharp contrast to previous rules.

    In the opposite direction, numerous private sector companies recently moved to punish or fire workers who’d posted celebratory message in response to the September murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk on their personal social media accounts. That sparked debate about undermining freedom of speech — and taught some workers a painful lesson about the First Amendment not absolutely protecting speech in the workplace.

    Those very high-profile developments over freedom of expression on the job may result in stronger efforts by people who’d rather avoid trouble or conflict by keeping politics out of the office altogether.

    “Political and religious talk is not permitted in the workplace,” said RustyBrassInstrument in a post on social media platform Reddit about limiting political discussion at work — apparently expressing a personal preference rather than legal fact. “You can be political or religious on your own time.”

    Not surprisingly, not everyone agrees.

    “Hot take, making people uncomfortable is usually the only way to make change,” redditor lovable_cube said in response to a thread titled, “Keep your politics at home” about a coworker spouting unwanted political opinions. “We have something very broken right now, we need change.”

    Monster drew other conclusions from the results of its survey. It suggested employers can find a productive balance between the extremes of banning talk about politics in the workplace, and letting debate flow unchecked in ways that risk sparking employee anger or higher quit rates.

    “Organizations that force or encourage political alignment risk alienating employees and fostering judgment rather than collaboration,” it said. “Creating a culture where employees feel comfortable, but not pressured, to share personal beliefs is crucial. Encouraging open communication about work-related issues, while maintaining neutrality on political topics, can help maintain a respectful and productive workplace.”

    Bruce Crumley

    Source link