Zero Tolerance Policies Don’t Work

• I actually found an article I wanted to read.
• I read the article (the entire thing!) and,
• I agree with it.

An inflexible zero-tolerance policy requires discharge or other severe discipline for any violation, even a first offense.  Yet in many cases, severe discipline would be a disproportional and inappropriate response.

More effective anti-harassment policies set forth a standard that lies between the extremes of zero tolerance and prohibition of conduct amounting to a violation of federal law. A more nuanced standard prohibits verbal or physical workplace conduct that would reasonably be considered denigrating based on sex, race, religion or another statutorily protected basis.

For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce offers guidelines for creating appropriate anti-harassment policies. The samples prohibit verbal or physical conduct “that denigrates or shows hostility or aversion toward an individual or group because of race, color, religion, gender, national origin, age or disability.” Similarly, the EEOC’s anti-harassment policy for its own workforce prohibits “hostile or abusive conduct based on race, color, religion, sex—whether or not of a sexual nature—national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation or retaliation, even if the conduct has not risen to the level of illegality.” (EEOC Order No. 560.005, “Prevention and Elimination of Harassing Conduct in the Workplace.”)

Employers should make clear they will undertake corrective action to stop such behavior even if no one expresses offense [emphasis mine]. The corrective action would be tailored to the severity of the behavior, taking into account the nature, degree and circumstances of the behavior as well as past history of similar misconduct.

Training helps employees understand the line between appropriate and inappropriate workplace behavior. Discussions of realistic scenarios can help clarify the conduct that violates the employer’s policy.

As part of a useful exercise: Have small groups of employees classify a variety of workplace behaviors as green, yellow or red light, meaning appropriate, questionable or inappropriate. The trainer can then lead discussion of the reasons why [emphasis mine] an employee should not engage in verbal or physical workplace conduct that would reasonably be considered derogatory based on race, sex or another statutorily protected characteristic even if the other party in the interaction does not seem offended.

3. Employers need to train employees on diversity & inclusion topics not because it is the law, not because a more enlightened workforce works better together, but because it is the right thing to do.

Source