According to Hewlett, in 2009 Brazilian women held thirty percent of executive positions compared to the twenty percent held by women in the United States.  Likewise, women hold thirty-two percent of  senior management positions in China. In the United States only twenty-three percent of senior management positions are held by women.

There is, however, a dark side to the professional success of women in these countries. According to Rashid’s research, women working in management positions in the BRIC countries commonly put in over sixty hours a week. Highly qualified Chinese women employed by global companies work an average of seventy-one hours a week, while Russian women in senior positions put in seventy-three hours a week.

The emphasis on work-life balance here in the United States may be holding some women back from making the same strides as their ambitious counterparts in BRIC countries. At the same time, taking steps to enable and encourage more young American women to pursue degrees in the science, technology, engineering, and math (the STEM fields facing a shortage of qualified employees) and encouraging the promotion of deserving women into senior and executive management positions could spur economic growth here at home.

We hold these truths — following years of eye-opening civil rights marches, presidential proclamations,  and federal legislation — to have finally been made evident, that all men and all women, of all ages, races, religions, ethnicities, national origins, sexual orientations,  abilities, disabilities, and perceived disabilities, are endowed by their Creator — or by One Big Bang Randomly Scattering Sub-Atomic Particles — with certain Litigable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Equal Pay for Equal Work.  To secure these rights, the EEOC, along with local, district, and supreme courts, are instituted among Men and Women and Transgenders, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed — that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to hold Tea Parties and to Occupy Wall Street and to pose questions via Facebook to Candidates Competing in Endless Televised Debates to institute a new Government as most likely to Lower Unemployment, to  Raise the Stock Market, to Protect Property Values, and to keep Terrorists, Tax Collectors, and  Drug Lords at bay.

I could not help asking myself this question last December when a visiting African asked me why it is considered offensive in the United States to wish someone a Merry Christmas. He could not fathom why this expression of good will was condemned by so many Americans and why the words Happy Holidays were considered a more appropriate greeting. We had a long talk about America as a melting pot and about Christians, Jews, Muslims, and atheists living side by side, but he still found the censure of “Merry Christmas” perplexing. As he put it, “It would not offend me if a Jewish person wished me a Happy Chaunkah.”

Derogatory, racist, misogynistic terms, without question, have no place in the workforce. However, with language forever evolving, it’s sometimes difficult for people to keep up with which terms they should and should not use. Once upon a time, Negro was an acceptable designation for an American of African descent. Later that term was considered derogatory and people were told to use the word Black instead. That word, in turn, has become offensive to some and has since been replaced by African American.

In some circles, the mere mention of God is considered offensive lest there be an atheist present.

In her February 2010 online article “Oops! What to Do When an Employee Says the Wrong Thing,” Rebecca Hastings talks about one of Human Resources’ latest responsibilities: coaching management on how to avoid the use of terms employees may find offensive and which might be grounds for costly lawsuits.
At the same time, Hastings acknowledges the difficulty of educating managers in the correct use of terminology when the connotations of certain words change from one day to the next. She quotes Communications Consultant Tim O’Brien’s statement that “people with disabilities currently abhor words like crippled, handicapped, mute, infirm, special and challenged.”

Special and challenged are now considered offensive. What’s left?

This issue isn’t new. In her 2008 MC-SHRM online article, “The Paralysis of Political Correctness,” Valda Boyd Ford voiced her concern about how our country’s obsession with political correctness is causing an outright paralysis in the workplace. “Today, we are awash in workplace- or business-related incidents where a casual comment, remark or question can invoke profound misunderstandings and consequences. People have grown afraid to voice their opinions and communicate honestly.”

Ford went on to describe the challenges facing executives as they, “Spend weeks and months working on every detail, speech and announcement to avoid faux pas.”

The extremes to which political correctness is taken seem to vary from coast to coast. Out in Hollywood, live award show MC’s are being carefully vetted and sit-coms sanitized of any hint of political incorrectness. Meanwhile, another type of democracy is alive and well back east where programs like Thirty Rock and Saturday Night Live do not discriminate but make fun of everyone and everything regardless of creed, race, and ethnicity.

Surely all human resources professionals will agree that there is no place for hurtful, insulting, racist, or derogatory language in our workplaces, but how do we deal with the constantly shifting sand of language and with a culture that takes political correctness too far? If it is our responsibility to coach our executives and supervisors in acceptable language, how do we balance that with their need to be able to speak openly and with confidence to their workers? And how can we promote diversity in our workforce and recognize of the inherent value of our employees’ different religious, ethnic, and national backgrounds if we’re expected to tiptoe around any and all references to Christmas and Chanukah and Cinco de Mayo and Ramadan and all the wonderful cultural contributions our workers’ varied different backgrounds have to offer?

According to Mr. Christie, the primary goal of an EAP should be to enhance productivity and safety in the workplace. Any subsequent benefits to the employees’ well-being are a consequence of meeting this goal.

Mr. Christie’s presentation shattered the myth of EAPs serving as little more than onsite counseling clinics. He proposed that, properly utilized, EAPs serve as multifaceted tools. The services they can provide an employer include:

• Return to work evaluations determining whether an employee who has been on leave for a mental health issue is actually ready to return to work. Such determinations can be especially crucial for employees engaged in safety sensitive jobs.
• Determining the need for any follow-up care required by employees returning from mental health related leaves.
• Designing and implementing alcohol and substance abuse policies.
• Designing and overseeing procedures for managing employees who test positive for drugs.
• Participating in the organization’s response to large-scale disasters which impact its workforce.
• Assisting employees following the death of a co-worker.
• Designing mental health and substance abuse benefits

Mr. Christie underscored the value of having an Employee Assistance Program by identifying some of the returns on investment an organization may expect from a fully utilized EAP. These returns may include:

• The retention of valuable employees going through a life crisis
• Improving employee engagement
• Developing competencies in managing workplace stress and team performance
• Reducing healthcare costs by identifying and helping employees to work through depression which, untreated, often presents itself as medical maladies
• Facilitating employees’ safe and timely return to work
• Reducing absenteeism
• Reducing accidents

A big thank you to Mr. Christie for sharing with us how an EAP can serve as a cost-effective asset to an organization when it is integrated into various programs (such as benefit planning, risk management, and supervisor training) rather than relegated to a back room visited only by employees in crisis.

Despite laws requiring that all applicants and workers be treated equally, regardless of caregiver status, a study conducted by the American Journal of Sociology has revealed that a significant number of employers discriminated against applicants who mentioned, in cover letters, that they were officers in elementary school parent-teacher organizations.

According to H R Magazine‘s recent cover story “Handle with Care,” the study consisted of resumes and cover letters for fictitious job applicants being submitted to real employers. The resumes reflected comparable qualifications. However some cover letters were designed to represent the applicants as childless, while others were designed to represent the applicants as having children. The fictitious women who were represented as mothers (those who mentioned that they served as officers for parent teacher organizations) received half as many callbacks as the fictitious childless women (those who mentioned that they served as officers for college alumni associations). Men participating in parent teacher organizations likewise received fewer callbacks than those participating in alumni associations, but the degree of discrimination towards fathers was not as pronounced as it was towards mothers.

The moral of this immoral story is that if you do volunteer work for any parent organizations, you should avoid referring to those organizations in any cover letter or resume you send out or post online. Likewise, if you assisting someone else with his or her resume or cover letter, advise them to do the same.

Of course, if you work in human resources, now is a good time to remind anyone involved in the hiring, selection, recruiting, or promoting process that a person’s status as a parent or a caregiver must not be considered when making employment decisions.

1. What was the nature and the gravity of the offense?
2. How much time has passed since the offense?
3. What is the nature of the job the person holds or is seeking?