Homework answers / question archive / Discussion Assignment Instructions: 250-word response utilize at least three peer reviewed journal articles for research to support contentions (and given credit with in-text citations and in the reference listing (in APA format 7th addition

Discussion Assignment Instructions: 250-word response utilize at least three peer reviewed journal articles for research to support contentions (and given credit with in-text citations and in the reference listing (in APA format 7th addition

Writing

Share With

Discussion Assignment Instructions:

250-word response utilize at least three peer reviewed journal articles for research to support contentions (and given credit with in-text citations and in the reference listing (in APA format 7th addition. I will still be analyzing for the quality of answers through evidence of critical thinking and answering all parts of all questions

References with the articles attached:

Ramirez, K. M., Harrison, T. L., & Craven, A. E. (2018). The Effects of Millennial and New Generation Endorsement Paths on Organizations’ Talent Management Programs. Journal of Behavioral & Social Sciences, 5(4), 218–230.

Schroth, H. (2019). Are You Ready for Gen Z in the Workplace? California Management Review, 61(3), 5–18. https://doi-org.bethelu.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/00081...

Wood, J. C. (2019). Millennials in the Workplace: Mystery or Magic? Dispute Resolution Journal, 74(1), 111–120.

Textbook - Mello, J. A. (2015). Strategic human resource management (4th Ed.). Cengage.

Discussion Assignment Question:

The upcoming workforce in the US will be made up of mostly Millennials and Gen Z employees. Given the amount of employee protections afforded by present employment

Human Resources Are You Ready for Gen Z in the Workplace? California Management Review 2019, Vol. 61(3) 5­–18 © The Regents of the University of California 2019 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125619841006 DOI: 10.1177/0008125619841006 journals.sagepub.com/home/cmr Holly Schroth1 SUMMARY Gen Z (1997-2013) is just now entering the labor market and employers need to be prepared for their arrival. While Gen Z shares many traits with the Millennial Generation, they also bring in new patterns of behavior. Managers today not only have to understand how to best manage youthful, inexperienced employees, but also the unique characteristics of the generation shaped by their experiences. Every generation has its doubts about the younger generation’s culture and technologies. Understanding their behavior and the distinct needs that they have in the workplace will lead to better integration of the new employees and mutual success. Keywords: human capital, human resource management, improving performance, leadership development, management, management communication, management development, management skills, organizational behavior, leadership T he Post-Millennial Generation also known as Gen Z (1997-2013)1 is just now entering the labor market and employers need to be prepared for its arrival. Generational or cohort differences in traits occur because the pervasive cultural values and practices change over time.2 While Gen Z shares many traits with the Millennial Generation, it also brings in new patterns of behavior. Managers today not only have to understand how to best manage youthful, inexperienced employees, but also the unique characteristics of the generation shaped by their experiences. Every generation has its doubts about the younger generation’s culture and technologies. Approaching generational differences with a blame mentality, which was prevalent with the Millennial Generation, only fosters complaints and derision toward the group instead of focusing on growth-oriented solutions. In addition, every generation is narcissistic, but narcissism is more associated with youth than cultural value differences and diminishes over time with exposure to more life experiences.3 Gen Z has been found to be the most achievement-oriented of the generations.4 In addition, Gen Zers have greater economic well-being, are more highly educated, and are more ethnically and racially diverse than any other generation.5 However, they are also the least likely to have worked when they 1University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA 5 6 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW 61(3) were young6 and most likely to suffer from depression and anxiety.7 To appreciate Gen Z, it is important to understand the formative events that are unique to this generation and how it has shaped them as learners and future employees. The most prominent of these include lack of work experience,8 the advent of the smartphone and social media,9 social justice movements,10 and growing up in a culture of safety.11 Understanding their behavior and the distinct needs that they have in the workplace, whether a factor of youth or generational difference, will lead to better integration of the new employees and mutual success. Lack of Work Experience In 1979, 60% of teens held a job, while in 2015, 34% of teens held a job and it is expected to drop to 25% in 2024.12 Post-Millennials are entering adulthood with less experience in the labor market than prior generations. Roughly one in five 15- to 17-year-olds in 2018 (19%) report having worked at all during the prior calendar year, compared with 30% of Millennial 15- to 17-year-olds in 2002.13 There are several factors that may be contributing to this. First, some measures of economic well-being indicate Gen Zers are growing up in more affluent circumstances than previous generations did. They live in households with higher median household incomes than older generations did when young, so they may not have to work to help the family.14 Another reason may be greater competition to get into top higher education institutions, so the summer is filled with extracurricular activities and summer enrichment classes.15 Many lower level jobs are also being filled by unemployed graduates or older workers.16 Work, especially entry-level jobs, helps teens learn what is expected in the workplace and how to interact effectively with others. Without this early work experience new entrants can often have unrealistic expectations of work, which in turn fosters lower levels of commitment and higher turnover.17 Managing Expectations: A Realistic Job Preview Giving new employees a realistic job preview increases motivation and decreases turnover because employees have realistic expectations of both the positive aspects and challenges of the job.18 This makes them mentally ready to tackle any obstacles that they may encounter. The realistic job preview can help to improve applicants’ decision about job fit. Typical topics that should be presented in the realistic job preview include the following: •• Essential job responsibilities •• Expectations for hours worked, travel, and working conditions •• Top positive and negative aspects associated with performing the job •• Top positive and negative aspects of working for the organization •• The top positive and negative aspects of working for the manager •• Culture, growth, and career path Are You Ready for Gen Z in the Workplace? Managing expectations are crucial as Gen Z employees often have an idealistic picture that the work will be interesting and meaningful, that their managers will want to hear and implement their ideas, that they will have flexibility in the schedule, and that they will enjoy everyone they work with.19 Many students do have some internship experience, but more frequently than not, they report that their experience was nothing like their “real job” and they are quickly disillusioned wanting to quit within three months.20 A Gen Z employee of a company I recently worked with admitted that she is in her third job within the year and has realized that her “expectations about work were unrealistic” and that she now has to “buckle down and start putting in the effort needed to work her way up to something better.” Managing Expectations: The Psychological Contract Complicating matters of organizational entry, new employees have an unwritten set of expectations about the employment relationship that greatly impacts their attitudes, feelings, and behaviors.21 This is called a psychological contract, and it is what management expects from workers and vice versa. For example, management is expected to pay commensurate with performance; give opportunities for training, development, and promotion; give feedback on performance; and treat employees respectfully. Employees are expected to work hard, develop new skills, follow directions, and be courteous to the boss, clients, and colleagues. Violations of the psychological contract can lead to poor performance and productivity, low satisfaction, high turnover, and theft.22 The psychological contract is unique to each employee-employer relationship because it is based on the two party’s individual perceptions and cognitions shaped by past interactions.23 As a result, it is important to talk to each new employee to understand that person’s expectations about the work relationship and to manage these expectations. For example, when asked what they want most from their boss in the workplace, Gen Z cited positive attitude (42%) and clear targets (37%), while Millennials stated open communication and feedback (42%) followed by clear targets (38%). Although their Gen X bosses did indicate that they were most likely to offer open communication (42%), they were less likely to offer a positive attitude (33%) and set clear targets (31%).24 This will improve the employee’s performance, satisfaction, and commitment while reducing the likelihood of turnover. A meta-analysis of data from 30 case studies over 15 years found that for workers earning less than $75,000 annually, the costs of turnover is 20% of salary. The cost is consistent across jobs at different pay levels, except the highest paying jobs where the cost of turnover is even greater.25 Managing Expectations: Onboarding Another important organizational entry tool for companies and managers of new employees is the concept of onboarding. Onboarding can be defined as “all formal and informal practices, programs, and policies enacted or engaged in by an organization or its agents to facilitate newcomer adjustment.”26 There are 7 8 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW 61(3) many positive outcomes resulting from effective onboarding practices for both new employees and organizations. These include better performance, retention, satisfaction, commitment, and self-efficacy.27 Onboarding practices help to reduce the inevitable uncertainty and anxiety newcomers experience,28 bring greater clarity and understanding to their new role,29 and help them make sense of their new environment.30 It also provides them with the necessary tangible (e.g., explicit knowledge) and intangible (e.g., relationships) resources to become fully functioning organizational members effective in their new role.31 Gen Z’s higher level of fear and uncertainty about the workplace increases the necessity of good onboarding practices.32 Top companies begin the onboarding process when the offer is accepted and continue to track and report the process of new hires.33 Only 12% of new employees say their company does a good job onboarding them and 87% say they do not have the optimum level of knowledge and tools necessary to do their job.34 Gen Zers report that they could have performed closer to their bosses’ expectations if they were given more clear instructions and training on the job.35 Lack of proper onboarding is cited as the reason that 25% of new employees report that they want to quit their jobs within the first six months.36 Some best practices for onboarding new entry-level employees advocated by practitioners and supported by research data include the following37: •• Providing a checklist: Include a specific timeline, goals, responsibilities, and resources/support available for the first day, first week, first month, and three months. This includes any information, materials, and experiences to help them learn what they need to know to be successful in their new roles and in the organization. Make sure that the manager sets aside time to welcome the new employee and to go over the checklist. Higher education institutions train students to work off a syllabus, checklist, and rubric.38 Understanding this, managers can present new employees from higher education institutions with a checklist initially. Managers and employees can then have a shared expectation to have employees actively work toward going beyond what is required in the checklist and thinking for themselves. •• Facilitate communication: Have Q&A sessions with senior leaders, HR, key staff, and coworkers with whom they will be interacting and are integral to their success in the company. Use technology such as videos and a variety of communication media to introduce information about the company and demonstrate any communication (e.g., Slack) or social networking tools used to facilitate internal interactions. The top learning method for 59% of Gen Z’s is YouTube.39 Have an orientation program with other new hires to facilitate socialization and get to know coworkers. •• Reinforce existing culture and sense of purpose: Explain the significance of their new role and how their presence makes a difference for the team. Reaffirm their decision to join the company. Reinforce the existing culture using success stories, especially stories that communicate effort and persistence, learning from mistakes, and growth and achievement. The more personalized an example the better. Are You Ready for Gen Z in the Workplace? •• Provide feedback channels: As a manager, set aside a block of uninterrupted time to spend with the newcomer to answer questions and address concerns. Make sure feedback goes in both directions. My undergraduate students tell me that they are much more likely to be motivated to work hard on an assignment if their manager explains why it is important, especially to their future growth and achievement. Gen Zers, characterized as very achievement-oriented, desire ongoing professional development and opportunities for promotion in their company (77% in the United States, 63% worldwide).40 Younger Millennials and Gen Zers say a top benefit they want from their employer (#1 and #2, respectively) is to have their ideas valued while older Millennials ranked this as #4 behind health insurance (also important to Gen Z), work-life balance, and vacation.41 The undergraduate students say they will not respect their manager if they feel disrespected. Disrespect to them is not listening to their ideas or being dismissive of their ideas. They also will consider employment decisions unfair if they do not fully understand the process and procedures used to make those decisions, such as project assignments and promotions. This is not novel to Gen Z as research in the field of procedural justice indicates that the perceived fairness of procedures and how one is treated greatly affects a person’s workplace satisfaction,42 performance,43 commitment and trust,44 as well as self-esteem.45 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion The notion of equality is important to Gen Z, with 91% believing that everyone is equal and should be treated that way.46 Issues surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion are more salient than in any other generation.47 Gen Z is also the most racially and ethnically diverse generation, as a slight majority of 6- to 21-year-olds (52%) are non-Hispanic whites.48 Although Gen Z feel passionately about issues of social justice, they are more likely than any other generation to support free speech restrictions49 and, on campuses, to disinvite speakers who do not support their point of view.50 The shift in government guidelines in 2013 broadened the definition of sexual discrimination harassment, suggesting that harassment does not have to be “objectively offensive” to warrant complaints. It demands colleges take action against alleged aggressors even before judicial hearings are held. The result of the policy is that Gen Z has to rely on their own subjective feelings of justice to decide whether a comment is unwelcome and grounds for a harassment claim.51 Organizations and managers are now tasked with clarifying what speech and behavior is acceptable in the workplace. The controversy at Google over the internal memo on gender equity and subsequent firing of the memo’s author is a good example of the challenges ahead for companies with regard to free speech and protecting against perceived and real bias.52 9 10 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW 61(3) Managing a Diverse and Inclusive Workforce Antiprejudice campaigns that exert strong pressure on people to be nonprejudiced appear to backfire, yielding heightened levels of prejudice.53 Unconscious or implicit bias training programs, promoted at Google and popular in higher education institutions, may lower the threshold for what is offensive. This results in employees perceiving subtle signals of prejudice where there are none.54 Such training can lead to an increase in tension among employees and false claims.55 It can also cause an increase in anxiety and depression.56 A female employee had said to me she used to like her job, but after implicit bias training she is “hypervigilant and sensitive to the smallest potential slights” so she cannot help but feel slighted every day and is thinking of quitting. Instead, introducing expectations of positive behaviors in the workplace and reinforcing those behaviors will lead to more effective interactions and discussion among diverse groups rather than suggesting that everyone is biased and therefore biased in their interactions.57 Workshops can encourage personal valuing of diversity and equality by examining the benefits to both the individual as well as the organization of having a diverse and fair workplace.58 Programs that promote procedural justice also increase positive feelings toward the company, job satisfaction, organizational commitment,59 and self-esteem.60 In addition, training in negotiation and conflict resolution skills teaches participants how to manage emotions, engage in a positive dialogue, build trust, develop relationships, and manage conflict in order to create value and work toward mutually satisfying agreements.61 Anxiety and Depression Gen Z is significantly more likely to report their mental health as fair or poor as compared with all other generations.62 They have the highest rate of diagnosed depression followed by anxiety.63 Only half feel they do enough to manage their stress while 25% say they do not feel they do enough.64 Sixtyseven percent of Gen Z in the United States and 85% worldwide say that stress prevents them from taking on leadership responsibilities.65 Considering these statistics, companies may consider putting more resources into their health and wellness programs. Support groups and some interventions that focus on teaching general psychosocial skills have been found to increase overall well-being66; 73% of Gen Zers feel that they could have used more emotional support in the past year.67 Fostering Autonomy Gen Z is unique in growing up with a culture of safety where overprotective parenting inadvertently took away their opportunity to learn life skills.68 This interfered with their social, emotional, and intellectual development, making it difficult for them to become autonomous adults, able to navigate the challenges of life, let alone the workplace. Becoming autonomous involves learning how to make responsible decisions and take actions in ambiguous and uncertain situations. Parents can foster autonomy in their children by loosening control, Are You Ready for Gen Z in the Workplace? having them make choices, and allowing them to take on more responsibility while not shielding them from unpleasant facts or outcomes.69 Autonomy is also facilitated by role modeling of parents who convey stable and consistent values demonstrating a congruence between beliefs and actions.70 Similarly, in the workplace, autonomy can be fostered by managers showing trust and support for new employees to make decisions, allowing them to take eventual ownership over projects and have greater control over their time management and how they complete tasks.71 There should be a shifting ownership in the process and accountability for the outcome from the manager to the employee, where the manager models what good processes look like and gives the tools and resources as needed to the employee to succeed.72 Fostering a Growth Mindset Parents are raising kids to stay kids longer, a “slow life strategy,” because there is less of a need for modern teens to become adults.73 Growing up more slowly combined with protection from life’s adversity detrimentally impacts this generations’ development and ability to cope.74 In her more than 20 years of research on mindsets,75 Carol Dweck has definitive evidence that protecting children from failure, removing obstacles for them, and only giving positive feedback can have lasting effects on their ability to cope in the workplace and life. Furthermore, overprotecting children can lead them to having a fixed mindset, where they have a desire to look smart and are fearful of showing they are not competent because they see intelligence and abilities as fixed traits. In the workplace, employees with a fixed mindset are unwilling to take on more challenging work.76 They hide or blame others for mistakes and avoid asking questions so as not to appear unknowledgeable. They ignore useful feedback and become defensive when given constructive advice, which they see as unfair criticism and are threatened by others’ success, seeking allies to complain about the boss and/ or company to shore up their self-esteem. Those with a growth mindset believe intelligence and abilities can be developed and have a desire to learn. This leads them to embrace challenges, persist despite obstacles, see effort as a path to mastery, and learn from criticism.77 They are inspired by others’ success. Those with a growth mindset are also much more engaged employees.78 Gen Z cites the fear of failing in a leadership role (34%) and a lack of confidence required to lead (33%) as the main reasons they would not take on more leadership responsibility in their roles.79 The concern for new managers is to recognize and then develop those who have a fixed mind set to have a growth mindset. According to Dweck, mindsets can be changed but it requires coaching. So what can you do to help your new employees develop a growth mindset? Dweck’s research suggests the following: •• Present skills as being learnable and that everyone is learning on the job. •• Convey on multiple occasions that the organization values learning, effort, and perseverance, and that mistakes are inevitable but can and should be learned from. Remember to praise for effort and initiative and not just results. 11 12 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW 61(3) •• Create a culture where feedback is seen as valuable. Acting on feedback is seen as helping them to achieve their goals and will be met with greater opportunities to move up in the company. Coach employees to seek both positive and constructive feedback, not just from their managers but from their peers. •• As their manager, present yourself as a resource and coach for learning— share your own mistakes and what you have learned from them. Some companies have promoted a culture of experimentation which includes “safe to fail” challenges, helping them exercise their strategic thinking and risk taking in a safe environment.80 In addition, my students indicate they are more willing to take on challenges and ask their manager for help if the managers tell their personal stories of overcoming a failure and how that has helped them to grow professionally and achieve success. Just listening, understanding, sharing stories and then setting some developmental goals together can make a big difference not only in the quality of the relationship but in effort, attitude, and quality of work performed. Forty-two percent of Gen Z say they want their boss to have a positive attitude and 33% want open communication81; 35% of Gen Z also say they expect “motivating behavior” from their manager, but only 25% of Gen X managers say they offer this.82 Closing the gap may reduce conflict and increase employee success. Workplace Coaching More and more is being expected of modern managers. Workplace coaching is a one-on-one, custom-tailored learning and development process that uses a collaborative, reflective, goal-focused relationship to achieve professional outcomes that are valued by the coachee.83 It is gaining widespread acceptance in the workplace as many organizations realize that technical expertise is no longer enough. Managers are now expected to relate to their team members in a way that maximizes their engagement, well-being, and performance, while also facilitating personal change.84 Coaching has been found to provide emotional support and to reduce stress of employees. It helps in goal attainment as well as increased psychological and workplace well-being.85 Gen Zers say they prefer collaborative learning rather than a “telling” approach.86 Consultative coaching helps employees explore alternatives and challenges the employee’s thinking by asking the employee questions rather than telling them what to do.87 The coaching process typically facilitates goal attainment by helping employees: •• Identify desired outcomes •• Establish specific goals •• Enhance motivation by identifying strengths and building self-efficacy •• Identify resources and formulate action plans Are You Ready for Gen Z in the Workplace? •• Monitor and evaluate progress •• Modify action plans where necessary Coaching may be a short “hallway” conversation or more lengthy formal session. Coaching can focus on developing a specific skill set to improve performance or enhancing emotional competencies to increase engagement and well-being. Communication Skills Companies are seeking employees who have the ability to communicate and interact effectively with others.88 Communication skills include both what is said during a social interaction and how it is said. This includes choice of words and phrases, appropriate facial expressions, tone of voice, body language, and eye contact. Employees’ social effectiveness depends on their ability to read, understand, and control social interactions,89 and it is related to job performance.90 The advent of the smart phone has had a significant impact on social interaction among this generation.91 The introduction of smart phones has been shown to reduce the amount of face-to-face interactions that teens have with each other.92 Technology plays a central role in Gen Zers’ lives, from socializing to schoolwork, entertainment to exercise, relaxation to reference.93 This can impair their ability to effectively communicate and interact with others, including the older generation, in the workplace. When asked on a typical day whether they communicate more in person or digitally, Gen Z and Millennials reported they communicate 74% digitally and 26% in person.94 Face-to-face communication fosters the development of interpersonal synchrony and rapport, leading to more trusting, cooperative behavior.95 By relying on text messaging primarily for their interaction, Gen Zers have missed out on learning some vital rules of conversation. This includes how to listen, ask questions, interject in a way that is seen as respectful to others, build relationships, problem solve in real time, and resolve conflicts.96 For example, when a message is complex or when there is conflict involved, it is best to use face-to-face interaction.97 However, Gen Zers are more comfortable using technology to communicate, even when the use of technology is not appropriate.98 Fostering Communication Effectiveness Smartphone-related patterns of communication will continue into the workplace unless the manager helps the new employee adapt to different modes of workplace communication and understand why relying on e-communication is not the most effective. Managers would be wise to address when and how to use each of the different communication mediums. They need to explain the level of formality in language expected with different constituents. For example, is slang permitted and if so, when? What about the use of emojis.99 Companies 13 14 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW 61(3) rate communication skills, critical thinking, and ability to apply knowledge to the real world as the most important skills for recent graduates, yet find a serious lack of preparedness in these areas.100 Evidence suggests that the development of social skills increases an employee’s self-esteem, autonomy, and more importantly for Gen Z, their ability to cope with stress while also reducing anxiety, depression, and frustration.101 Moving Forward Managers face special challenges with the new generation of employees because Gen Z is not as prepared for the realities of the workplace as past generations. It is important for managers to understand the factors that have influenced Gen Zers to think and behave as they do. These factors include a lack of work experience, the advent of the smartphone and popularity of social media, social justice movements, and growing up in a culture of safety. Understanding their behavior and the distinct needs that they have will help managers to better integrate the new employees into the workplace for mutual success. Managers can best prepare the Gen Z employees for the workplace by taking time to help manage their expectations. This can be done by providing them with a realistic job preview during the job interview process so they understand both the positive aspects and challenges of the job. This helps them decide whether the job would be a good fit and allows them to mentally prepare for any obstacles they may encounter in the workplace. Upon arrival into the company, the manager and employee should engage in a psychological contract, which is a more detailed agreement of mutual expectations for the manager-employee relationship. In addition, employees will perform closer to their managers’ expectations if they are properly on-boarded, provided checklists of performance goals and resources as well as an orientation program to facilitate internal communications. To reduce anxiety in the workplace, managers can help new employees gain a sense of autonomy by allowing them to take greater ownership of projects and make more of their own decisions over time. Furthermore, managers can foster a growth mindset in their employees by emphasizing learning on the job and creating a culture where feedback is valued and acted upon. Ultimately, a manager acting as a coach to guide the employee and provide emotional support reduces stress and anxiety of employees while helping them in their development. By employing these strategies, managers can successfully integrate their new employees into the workplace, increasing workplace satisfaction and productivity, while reducing costly turnover. While some companies were caught off-guard by the arrival of the Millennials, it is not too late to prepare for Gen Z. Author Biography Holly Schroth is a Distinguished Teaching Fellow and Senior Lecturer at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley (email: hschroth@ berkeley.edu). Are You Ready for Gen Z in the Workplace? Notes   1. Michael Dimock, “Defining Generations: Where Millennials End and Generation Z Begins,” Pew Research Center, January 17, 2018, http://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2018/03/01/defining-generations-where-millennials-end-and-post-millennialsbegin/. Pew Research Center decided to use 1996 as the last birth year for Millennials. Anyone born from 1997 onward is part of a new generation. The generational cutoff points are not an exact science but the boundaries are also not arbitrary. There is no agreed upon formula for how long that span should be. The 16 years selected is the equivalent span of Millennial and Generation X, with Baby Boomers being slightly longer at 19 years; 1996 is considered meaningful by the Pew Research Center because research has shown the launch of the smart phone in 2007 has led to dramatic shifts in behaviors, attitudes, and lifestyles.    2. B. W. Roberts, G. Edmonds, and E. Grijalva, “It Is Developmental Me, not Generation Me: Developmental Changes Are More Important than Generational Changes in Narcissism— Commentary on Trzesniewski & Donnellan (2010),” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5/1 (January 2010): 97-102.   3. Ibid. According to the Pew Research Center, generational cohorts help researchers understand how different formative experiences—such as technological, economic, and social shifts—interact with the life cycle and aging process to shape people’s views of the world. There is longitudinal data for only a subset of the issues the paper addresses because researchers are just beginning to study the new generation.   4. Barna Group, “Is Gen Z the Most Success Oriented Generation?” Research Releases in Millennials & Generations, June 6, 2018. https://www.barna.com/research/is-gen-z-the -most-success-oriented-generation/.   5. R. Fry and K. Parker, “Early Benchmarks Show ‘Post-Millennials’ on Track to be Most Diverse, Best-Educated Generation,” Pew Research Center, 2018, http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/11/15/early-benchmarks-show-post-millennials-on-track-to-be-most-diverse-best-educated-generation-yet/.   6. Ibid.    7. American Psychological Association, “Stress in America: Generation Z,” 2018, https://www. apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2018/stress-gen-z.pdf.    8. Fry and Parker, op. cit.   9. J. M. Twenge, iGen: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids Are Growing up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy, and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood (New York, NY: Atria Books, 2017). 10. Ibid.; G. Lukianoff and J. Haidt, The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting up a Generation for Failure (New York, NY: Penguin Press, 2018). 11. Lukianoff and Haidt, op. cit. 12. Teresa L. Morisi, “Teen Labor Force Participation before and after the Great Recession and Beyond,” Monthly Labor Review (February 2017), doi:10.21916/mlr.2017.5. 13. Fry and Parker, op. cit. 14. Ibid. 15. Twenge, op. cit. 16. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, op. cit. 17. M. A. Huselid, “The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover, Productivity, and Corporate Financial Performance,” Academy of Management Journal, 38/3 (June 1995): 635-672, doi:10.2307/256741. 18. J. M. Phillips, “Effects of Realistic Job Previews on Multiple Organizational Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis,” Academy of Management Journal, 41/6 (December 1998): 673-690. 19. H. A. Schroth, student survey from Leading People undergraduate class, Spring Semester 2018. 20. Ibid. 21. U. P. Sherman and M. J. Morley, “On the Formation of the Psychological Contract: A Schema Theory Perspective,” Group & Organization Management, 40/2 (April 2015): 160-192. 22. J. M. Jensen, R. A. Opland, and A. M. Ryna, “Psychological Contracts and Counterproductive Work Behaviors: Employee Responses to Transactional and Relational Breach,” Journal of Business and Psychology, 25/4 (December 2010): 555-568; A. Jamil, U. Raja, and W. Darr, “Psychological Contract Types as Moderator in the Breach-Violation and Violation-Burnout Relationships,” The Journal of Psychology, 147/5 (2013): 491-515, doi:10.1080/00223980.2012 .717552. 15 16 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW 61(3) 23. J. L. Pearce, “Review of Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Written and Unwritten Agreements,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 43/1 (March 1998): 184-188. 24. H. Bresman and V. Rao, Building Leaders for the Next Decade: How to Support the Workplace Goals of Generation X, Y and Z, Universum eBook, joint collaboration between Universum, INSEAD Emerging Markets Institute, MIT Leadership Center, and The HEAD Foundation, 2018. 25. H. Boushey and S. J. Glynn, “There Are Significant Business Costs to Replacing Employees,” Center for American Progress, 2012, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/ reports/2012/11/16/44464/there-are-significant-business-costs-to-replacing-employees/. 26. H. J. Klein and B. Polin, “Are Organizations Onboard with Best Practices Onboarding?” in The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Socialization, ed. C. R. Wanberg (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 267-287. 27. T. N. Bauer, T. Bodner, B. Erdogan, D. M. Truxillo, and J. S. Tucker, “Newcomer Adjustment during Organizational Socialization: A Meta-Analytic Review of Antecedents, Outcomes, and Methods,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 92/3 (May 2007): 707-721; D. M. Cable and C. K. Parsons, “Socialization Tactics and Person-Organization Fit,” Personnel Psychology, 54/1 (March 2001): 1-23; R. Fang, M. K. Duffy, and J. D. Shaw, “The Organizational Socialization Process: Review and Development of a Social Capital Model,” Journal of Management, 37/1 (January 2011): 127-152. 28. D. Allen, “Do Organizational Socialization Tactics Influence Newcomer Embeddedness and Turnover?” Journal of Management, 32/2 (April 2006): 237-256. 29. H. D. Cooper-Thomas and N. Anderson, “Organizational Socialization: A Field Study into Socialization Success and Rate,” International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13/2 (June 2005): 116-128. 30. Klein and Polin, op. cit. 31. Ibid.; Cooper-Thomas and Anderson, op. cit. 32. Bresman and Rao, op. cit. 33. Klein and Polin, op. cit. 34. E. O’Boyle and J. Harter, “35 Organizations Lead the World in Creating Cultures of Engagement,” Gallup, April 13, 2016, http://www.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/190604/organizations-lead-world-creating-culturesengagement.aspx. 35. Schroth, op. cit. 36. Korn Ferry, “Korn Ferry Futurestep Survey: 90% of Executives Say New Hire Retention an Issue,” https://www.kornferry.com/press/korn-ferry-futurestep-survey-90-percent-of-executives-say-new-hire-retention-an-issue. 37. Klein and Polin, op. cit. 38. R. Arum, Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2011). 39. Pearson Higher Education Survey, “What Do Generation Z and Millennials Expect from Technology in Education?” 2018, https://www.pearsoned.com/generation-z -millennials-expect-technology-education/. 40. Bresman and Rao, op. cit. 41. M. Merriman and D. Valerio, “Next Gen Workforce: Secret Weapon or Biggest Challenge,” Ernst and Young, 2016, https://www.ey.com/en_gl/consumer-products-retail/ next-gen-workforce-secret-weapon-or-biggest-challenge. 42. E. A. Lind and T. R. Tyler, The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice (New York, NY: Plenum Press, 1988). 43. A. M. T. Suliman, “Links between Justice, Satisfaction and Performance in the Workplace: A Survey in the UAE and Arabic Context,” Journal of Management Development, 26/4 (2007): 294-311, doi:10.1108/02621710710740075. 44. N. Lehmann-Willenbrock, A. Grohmann, and S. Kauffeld, “Promoting Multifoci Citizenship Behavior: Time-Lagged Effects of Procedural Justice, Trust, and Commitment,” Applied Psychology: An International Review, 62/3 (July 2013): 454-485. 45. H. A. Schroth and P. Pradhan Shah, “Procedures: Do We Really Want to Know Them? An Examination of the Effects of Procedural Justice on Self-Esteem,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 85/3 (June 2000): 462-471, doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.462. 46. Barnes & Noble College Insights, “Conversations with Gen Z: Values & Beliefs,” October 11, 2018, https://next.bncollege.com/gen-z-students-values-beliefs/. 47. Twenge, op. cit. 48. Fry and Parker, op. cit. 49. Ibid. Are You Ready for Gen Z in the Workplace? 50. Foundation for Individual Rights Education, 2018, https://www.thefire.org/. 51. Lukianoff and Haidt, op. cit. 52. D. Wakabayashi, “Contentious Memo Strikes Nerve inside Google and Out,” The New York Times, August 8, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/technology/google-engineerfired-gender-memo.html. 53. S. O. Lilienfeld, “Microaggressions: Strong Claims, Inadequate Evidence,” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12/1 (January 2017): 138-169, doi:10.1177/1745691616659391; M. Noon, “Pointless Diversity Training: Unconscious Bias, New Racism and Agency,” Work, Employment and Society, 32/1 (February 2018): 198-209, doi:10.1177/0950017017719841. 54. Lilienfeld, op. cit.; A. Kalev, F. Dobbin, and E. Kelly, “Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies,” American Sociological Review, 71/4 (August 2006): 589-617, doi:10.1177/000312240607100404. 55. L. Legault, J. N. Gutsell, and M. Inzlicht, “Ironic Effects of Antiprejudice Messages: How Motivational Interventions Can Reduce (but Also Increase) Prejudice,” Psychological Science, 22/12 (2011): 1472-1477, doi:10.1177/0956797611427918. 56. Lukianoff and Haidt, op. cit. 57. Legault et al., op. cit. 58. Ibid. 59. B. S. O’Neill and J. L. Cotton, “Putting the Horse before the Cart: Understanding the Influence of Trigger Events on Justice Perceptions and Work Attitudes,” Journal of Managerial Issues, 29/4 (Winter 2017): 343-364. 60. Schroth and Pradhan Shah, op. cit. 61. See https://executive.berkeley.edu/programs/negotiation-and-influence. 62. American Psychological Association, op. cit. 63. Ibid. 64. American Psychological Association, op. cit. 65. Bresman and Rao, op. cit. 66. M. Reblin and B. N. Uchino, “Social and Emotional Support and Its Implication for Health,” Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 21/2 (March 2008): 201-205; Legault et al., op. cit. 67. American Psychological Association, op. cit. 68. Lukianoff and Haidt, op. cit. 69. E. B. Murphey, E. Silber, G. V. Coelho, D. A. Hamburg, and I. Greenberg, “Development of Autonomy and Parent-Child Interaction in Late Adolescence,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 33/4 (July 1963): 643-652, doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.1963.tb01012.x. 70. Ibid. 71. M. Sari, “Vocational Students’ Perspective on Organizational Factors Enhancing Workplace Learning,” Education + Training, 56/5 (2014): 381-396, doi:10.1108/ET-05-2013-0069. 72. F. Gino and B. Staats, “Developing Employees Who Think for Themselves,” Harvard Business Review, June 3, 2015. https://hbr.org/2015/06/developing-employees-who-think-for-themselves. 73. Twenge, op. cit. 74. Ibid. 75. C. Dweck, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success (New York, NY: Random House, 2006). 76. Ibid. 77. Dweck, op. cit. 78. L. A. Keating and P. A. Heslin, “The Potential Role of Mindsets in Unleashing Employee Engagement,” Human Resource Management Review, 25/4 (December 2015): 329-341, doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.01.008. 79. Bresman and Rao, op. cit. 80. Ibid. 81. Bresman and Rao, op. cit. 82. Ibid. 83. J. W. Smither, “Can Psychotherapy Research Serve as a Guide for Research about Executive Coaching? An Agenda for the Next Decade,” Journal of Business and Psychology, 26/2 (June 2011): 135-145. 84. A. M. Grant and G. B. Spence, “Using Coaching and Positive Psychology to Promote a Flourishing Workforce: A Model of Goal-Striving and Mental Health,” in Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology and Work, ed. P. A. Linley, S. Harrington, and N. Garcea (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 175-188. 17 18 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW 61(3) 85. T. Theeboom, B. Beersma, and A. E. M. van Vianen, “Does Coaching Work? A Meta-Analysis on the Effects of Coaching on Individual Level Outcomes in an Organizational Context,” The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9/1 (September 2014): 1-18, doi:10.1080/17439760.2013.837499. 86. Barnes & Noble College Insights, op. cit. 87. A. M. Grant, “The Third ‘Generation’ of Workplace Coaching: Creating a Culture of Quality Conversations,” Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 10/1 (2017): 37-53, doi:10.1080/17521882.2016.1266005; A. M. Grant, J. Passmore, M. J. Cavanagh, and H. M. Parker, “The State of Play in Coaching Today: A Comprehensive Review of the Field,” in International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, ed. G. P. Hodgkinson and J. K. Ford, vol. 25 (Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), pp. 125-167. 88. GMAC Corporate Recruiters’ Survey, “Employers Seek Communication Skills in New Hires,” 2017, https://www.mba.com/mbas-and-business-masters/articles/your-career-path/employers-seek-communications-skills; W. A. Hochwarter, L. A. Witt, D. C. Treadway, and G. R. Ferris, “The Interaction of Social Skill and Organizational Support on Job Performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 91/2 (March 2006): 482-489; D. J. Deming, “The Growing Importance of Social Skills in the Labor Market,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 132/4 (November 2017): 1593-1640. 89. G. R. Ferris, P. L. Perrewé, and C. Douglas, “Social Effectiveness in Organizations: Construct Validity and Research Directions,” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9/1 (August 2002): 49-63. 90. Deming, op. cit. 91. Twenge, op. cit. 92. Ibid. 93. A. Lenhart, “Teens, Social Media & Technology Overview 2015,” Pew Research Center, 2015, http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015/. 94. R. Bradbury, “The Digital Lives of Millennials and Gen Z,” LivePerson, 2018, https://www. liveperson.com/resources/reports/digital-lives-of-millennials-genz/. 95. Ibid. 96. R. Friedman and S. Currall, “Conflict Escalation: Dispute Exacerbating Elements of Email Communication,” Human Relations, 56/11 (November 2003): 1325-1347; M. W. Morris, J. Nadler, T. Kurtzberg, and L. Thompson, “Schmooze or Lose: Social Friction and Lubrication in E-Mail Negotiations,” Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6/1 (2002): 89-100; Pew Research Center, “Communication Choices: Texting Dominates Teens’ General Communication Choices,” 2012, http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/03/19/ communication-choices/. 97. R. L. Daft and R. H. Lengel, “Information Richness: A New Approach to Managerial Behavior and Organizational Design,” Research in Organizational Behavior, 6 (1984): 191-233; S. R. Murray and J. Peyrefitte, “Knowledge Type and Communication Media Choice in the Knowledge Transfer Process,” Journal of Managerial Issues, 19/1 (Spring 2007): 111-133. 98. A. L. Drolet and M. W. Morris, “Rapport in Conflict Resolution: Accounting for How Nonverbal Exchange Fosters Cooperation on Mutually Beneficial Settlements to MixedMotive Conflicts,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36 (2000): 26-50. 99. E. Glikson, A. Cheshin, and G. A. van Kleef, “The Dark Side of a Smiley: Effects of Smiling Emoticons on Virtual First Impressions,” Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9/5 (2018): 614-625, doi:10.1177/1948550617720269. 100. Hart Research Associates, “Fulfilling the American Dream: Liberal Education and the Future of Work: Surveys of Business Executives and Hiring Managers,” Association of American Colleges & Universities, Washington, DC, 2018, https://www.aacu.org/ research/2018-future-of-work. 101. D. Johnson and R. Johnson, Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning (Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1999). Copyright of California Management Review is the property of California Management Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. L abor relations is a key strategic issue for organizations because the nature of the relationship between the employer and employees can have a significant impact on morale, motivation, and productivity. Workers who feel that the terms and conditions of their employment are less than advantageous will not be as committed to perform and to remain with an employer. Consequently, how organizations manage the day-to-day aspects of the employment relationship can be a key vari-able affecting their ability to achieve strategic objectives. Workers who have unionized create special challenges for human resource (HR) management. When workers form unions, the employment relationship becomes more formal through a union contract and is subject to special provisions of the National Labor Relations Act. This Act allows unions to be formed and exist as employee organizations that have the legal right to bargain with management over various terms and conditions of employment. Unions provide membership solely for employees; managers are prohibited by law from joining employee unions or from forming their own unions. Organized labor in the United States has had a cyclical history, generally consisting of short periods of sharp growth in union membership and activity followed by extended periods of decline.2 In the early part of the twentieth century, employee-centered management practices were eroding interest in unionization. The Great Depression then ignited strong interest in unions with the resul-tant creation by John Lewis of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). At that time, both the CIO and the American Federation of Labor (AFL) were able to unionize large segments of the work-force. These organizing efforts were largely focused on second-generation immigrants, particularly Catholics, Italians, and Jews, as unions attempted to provide these individuals with the full benefits of working in the WASP-dominated economy. Unions continued to enjoy increased membership until World War II. Interest in unions declined postWar until the mid-1960s, when unions began to reach out to African Americans dur-ing the drive for civil rights and subsequently enjoyed a renewed popularity. Also at that time, Cesar Chavez founded the National Farm Workers Association, drawing attention to the plight of Latino and Filipino farm workers who had been forced to endure deplorable working conditions and substandard wages. Chavez’s efforts led to a grape boycott that was observed by more than 17 million Americans and, more generally, resulted in widespread awareness and distrust of exploitation of workers by employers. These successes also led to a flurry of union organization among public sector employees that continued until the early 1980s. August 3, 1981 is considered to be a significant day in the history of American labor. On that date, more than 12,000 employees of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) who were members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers (PATCO) union walked off of their jobs. When President Reagan ordered them back to work within 48 hours, 11,325 of them refused and were fired immedi-ately, as the FAA commenced hiring permanent replacements. Since the unsuccessful PATCO strike, strikes have nearly disappeared in the United States. During the 1950s, organized labor successfully orchestrated an average of 344 work stoppages annually.3 However, postPATCO, that number had continuously been in decline and by 2008 had dipped to just 15, with 9 of these 15 lasting for 10 days or less.4 The PATCO strike greatly influenced public perceptions against organized labor stoppages and affirmed the right for employers to hire permanent replacements for striking workers. This shift has turned the strike into a present-day near-suicide tactic for unions. Union membership in the United States has been steadily declining for a number of years. In 1970, approximately 30 percent of the private workforce was unionized, in addition to a majority of public sector employees. By 1999, the U.S. Department of Labor reported that only 13.9 percent of the workforce was unionized. By 2016 union membership had dropped further to 10.7 percent of the workforce. Public sector employees were more than five times more likely to be union members than private sector employees (34.4 percent versus 6.4 percent), and more than 50 percent of union mem-bers lived in seven states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Jersey, and Ohio).5 These numbers represented continuous year-to-year declines in overall union membership as well as in both the public and private sector union density.6 The decline in union membership can be attributed to a number of factors. First, many work-ers have become disenfranchised from their unions. Allegations of union corruption and misuse of funds—combined with the fact that workers sometimes feel that the costs of union membership out-weigh the benefits—have eroded union membership. Second, many organizations have moved their manufacturing and assembly operations outside the United States. Unions have traditionally had their strongest bases of support among these blue-collar workers, and the movement of those jobs overseas has hurt unions. Third, changes in the nature of work and technology have eliminated many of the traditional manual labor jobs in which union members were employed. Finally, many unions have refused to be flexible enough to allow organizations to grow and adapt in relation to the changes taking place in their industries, markets, and the technological, economic, and sociocultural environ-ments. The traditional model of American labor unions, which guard employee rights by attempting to maintain the status quo, no longer benefits employers or employees. Unions of the future will have to be based on a different model and have different relationships with the organizations whose workers they represent—if they continue to exist. Although overall union membership is declining, it is important to understand organized labor relations for at least three reasons. First, in many industries, unionization is the norm. Many public sector workplaces are unionized. In the private sector, industries such as transportation, construc-tion, hospitality, publishing, education, and health care are usually highly unionized. In fact, the transportation industry has the highest level of private sector union membership, at 25.5 percent.7 Managers and business owners in these industries have no choice but to be well versed on the laws that regulate the relationship with union employees. Second, competitors may be unionized, and set-tlements in those organizations may impact HR practices, programs, and policies needed to remain competitive in recruiting and retaining productive employees. Arguably, the most important reason for employers to have a sense of the labor relations landscape is that the National Labor Relations Act provides all employees—rather than just those who have unionized—with specific rights. Con-sequently, many employers who operate in nonunion environments may be unfamiliar with some of the terms and conditions of employment outlined in the Act. Section 7 of the Act grants all employees, including those who are not members of unions, the right to engage in activities that support their “mutual aid or protection.” There are six notable provisions under this section that employers must know to avoid violations of the Act.8 First is the right of employees to discuss employment terms. In order for employees to consider whether they wish to organize, they must be able to discuss the terms and conditions of employ-ment, including compensation, harassment, and discrimination. This right, however, does not extend to the disclosure of confidential information, such as salaries, to which an employee might have access as part of his or her job. Second, employees reserve the right to complain to third parties, such as customers, clients, and the media, about their treatment by the employer. Again, however, the employer retains the right to prohibit disclosure of any confidential or proprietary information. Third, employees have the right to engage in a work stoppage or collective walkout to protest work-ing conditions without fear of retaliation. Any employee who is disciplined or discharged for engaging in such behavior has a valid claim against the employer under the National Labor Relations Act. Fourth, employees have the right to honor picket lines without fear of retaliation. This is considered protected activity regardless of whether the employee is a member of the picketing union or merely sympathetic to the cause and plight of the workers on the picket line. Fifth, employees have the con-ditional right to solicit and distribute union literature. Such behavior can be restricted but not fully prohibited, as will be discussed shortly. Finally, employers cannot unilaterally ban employees’ access to the worksite while off duty. Restrictions may be imposed that limit access to the interior of the facility if applied consistently to all employees for all purposes, but employees still retain the right to be present on company property, such as the employee parking lot, after working hours to engage in behaviors protected under the Act. It cannot be emphasized enough that nonunion employees enjoy significant protection against arbitrary, capricious, or harassing conduct by employers. This standard was established by the Supreme Court in the 1962 case of NLRB v. Washington Aluminum Co.,9 where the Court found that employee activity that was concerted for mutual aid or protection (in this case, walking off the job in protest of poor working conditions) was lawful. As long as the employee’s or group of employees’ actions are beyond that of a personal complaint pursued in self-interest, such behavior is protected without the presence of a formally recognized union. These rights have consistently been reinforced in numerous court cases since the initial ruling in Washington Aluminum. Just because an organization is not unionized today does not mean that it may not be in the future. Managers in such organizations need to know why workers form or join unions, how the law requires the employer to behave during any union-organizing campaign and after a union has been voted in, how the collective-bargaining process is conducted, and how impasses may be settled. Some management advisors who work with organizations on labor relations have even gone as far to encourage employers to have their supervisors talk openly with employees about possible union representation in a proactive manner before any possible organizing efforts begin.10 Critical to such a strategy, however, is training of managers on what they are allowed to say to employees (facts, opin-ions, and examples) and what they are not allowed to say or do (threats, interrogation, promises, and surveillance).11 The word “union” means that workers have agreed to work together in dealing with and nego-tiating the terms and conditions of their employment with management. The Latin root uni means one, in the sense of a union; it means that a plurality of workers has united to speak with “one voice.” Organized labor presents a number of key strategic challenges for management. First, when workers unionize, the power based within the organization is redistributed. Employers can find that their ability to manage workers at their discretion to achieve the organization’s strategic objectives has been severely curtailed. Second, the process of unionization involves bringing in outside players: union representatives, who then become an additional constituency whose support must be gained for any new or ongoing management initiatives. Finally, a unionized work setting can greatly impact the organization’s cost structure, particularly payroll expenses and work processes that may contrib-ute to or retard efficiency in operations. Why Employees Unionize Employees usually form or join unions because of the perceived benefits that unionization might provide them. These benefits can be economic, social, and/or political. Economic benefits can result from a union’s ability to negotiate higher wages, better or expanded benefits, greater job or employment security, and improved working hours and conditions. Social benefits can be derived from the affiliation and sense of community that workers share when they are unionized. Their personal issues and needs relating to their jobs and lifestyles can often be integrated within the union agenda, with corresponding support gained from coworkers. Unions also often sponsor social events for their members and their families. Is it not surprising that many unions have the word “brotherhood” in their name; this attempts to signify the family or community atmosphere the union tries to create for its members. Political benefits can be gained through the sense of power in numbers. In negotiating with management over terms and conditions of employment, individual employees are relatively power-less. They often need the organization (to earn a living) far more than the organization needs them (individual workers can be easily replaced). When workers unionize and speak with one voice, they leverage their individual power against management, and equalize the balance of power within the organization. Management may be able to do without individual employees, but they cannot do without their entire workforce. Unions can allow workers far greater say and involvement in nego-tiating and setting critical terms and conditions of employment and in ensuring fair treatment from the organization. Unions can often provide additional political benefits in a literal sense in that the power and strength of their united membership can be used to support and influence political races and legislation passed at the local, state, and federal levels. No benefits come without some cost, and union membership is no exception. Union members pay at least two significant costs for their benefits. First are the economic costs of the fees or dues that unions charge their members to support the initiatives the union undertakes on behalf of its employees. Second are the political costs employees assume when they relinquish their individual freedom to deal with their employer and be represented by the union. Individual employees may not agree with the terms and conditions negotiated for them or the tactics and strategies the union uses in negotiating. Although individual employees do vote on the decision to strike, an employee who does not wish or cannot afford to go out on strike is basically stuck in accepting the majority position and then assumes any risk associated with deviating from the union majority. The National Labor Relations Act In 1935, Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), also called the Wagner Act, which gave employees the right to unionize and to regulate union and management relations. This Act has been amended several times, most notably in 1947, with amendments known as the Taft-Hartley Act, and in 1959, with amendments known as the Landrum-Griffith Act. The NLRA created the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to oversee the provisions of the Act. Among other duties, the NLRB is responsible for overseeing union elections, certifying a particular union as the official bargaining representative of a group of employees, and hearing allega-tions of violations of the Act from employers, unions, and employee groups. As a first step in establishing a union, a group of employees petitions the NLRB, often through the assistance of a union representative, to conduct an election. As a prerequisite for an election, the NLRB requires at least 30 percent of the employees to have signed authorization cards, which indicate an expressed interest in having union representation from a specific union. Most petitions to the NLRB involve the presentation of authorization cards from a far greater number of employees than 30 percent. These authorization cards are not a vote for the union; they are merely the means for establishing the level of employee interest to conduct an election. Some employees who are not in favor of union repre-sentation often sign authorization cards under peer pressure or to facilitate the election process. Union-organizing campaigns often create very stressful working conditions, and some employees who are against unionization may sign authorization cards to ensure that the election be held as soon as possible. Once the NLRB has received the authorization cards and determined that there is sufficient interest to conduct an election, it will attempt to determine the appropriate bargaining unit. A bar-gaining unit is a group of employees who have similar wages, skill levels, working conditions, and/or levels of professionalism. The NLRB will determine whether the organization should have one bar- gaining unit that covers all employees or separate bargaining units for different groups of employees, given the differences in their jobs. For example, airlines have separate bargaining units for flight attendants, pilots, and ramp workers, given the differences in job responsibilities, training, hours, and working conditions. News-papers have separate unions for writers, printers, and press people because of similar differences. A restaurant, on the other hand, might have one bargaining unit that includes wait staff, cooks, hosts, bartenders, and bus staff. When a unionized organization has more than one bargaining unit, each bargaining unit negotiates a contract with management separately; however, the individual units are often impacted by what the other units negotiate, and each unit often lends support to the others during periods of labor unrest. Union representatives are increasingly seeking to organize what are called micro bargaining units in which smaller groups of employees than usual are organized. Experience has shown that unions have enjoyed a higher rate of success in organizing smaller bargaining units than larger units as it is generally easier to reach, communicate a message to, and convince a small group of individuals. Employers can, and do, counter this strategy by arguing that there is a larger community of inter-ests present and encouraging a bargaining unit to include other employees. While this can be a risky strategy for employers, it has proven to be more beneficial than not in combating union organizing drives. In addition, micro bargaining units also complicate management of organizations, as they create barriers to cross-training and teamwork as each unit generally will allow work to be completed only by its members who typically have more specialized experience and skills, thus, escalating costs. When the NLRB conducts an election, the option that receives the majority of the votes (50 per-cent plus one) wins the election. There may, however, be more than two options (union or no union) on the ballot. Given that the NLRB requires authorization cards from only 30 percent of employees, it is mathematically possible for more than one union to be part of an election. This has been the case when there has been public knowledge of dissatisfied employees and thus more than one union attempted to organize workers simultaneously. If there were three options on the ballot (no union, Union A, Union B) and none of them received more than 50 percent of the initial vote, then the option receiving the least support would be dropped and a second ballot would be issued. Eventually, one option will have the support of more than 50 percent of the employees in the prospective bargaining unit. Behavior During Organizing Campaigns Union-organizing campaigns often present difficult working conditions for employees, who are often continuously subjected to opposing information from management, union representatives, and prounion coworkers in support of their respective positions. In passing the NLRA, Congress determined that it should regulate the behavior of management and union representatives in union-organizing campaigns to ensure that one does not have an unfair advantage over the other in com-municating positions to employees. The NLRA outlines specific provisions pertaining to employer conduct during union-organizing campaigns in its discussion of unfair labor practices. Section 8(c) of the Act provides that “the expres-sion of views, arguments or opinions, or the dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic or visual form shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice . . . if such expres-sion contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.” Therefore, employers have free rein to communicate their position concerning unionization to employees during working hours, which is only appropriate because the employers are paying employees for that time. However, employers are forbidden from making any threat or promise pending the outcome of the election. The reason for this directive is that allowing employers to do so would give employers an unfair advantage in the election. The union does not have the power to make any such promises, and so to ensure a level play-ing field, the NLRB also prohibits employers from doing so. Employers need to treat employees more favorably before the NLRB has stepped in and established employee interest in conducting an election. The Act also allows prounion employees the full right to approach their coworkers at work and express their support of the union, as long as such contact takes place during nonworking periods in nonworking areas (such as the employee cafeteria during lunch breaks, the parking lot after leaving work, or in a restroom during a scheduled break). This is consistent with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. Employers can prohibit employees who support the union from communicat-ing this support to coworkers at any other time. A more difficult question concerns the extent to which employers can prevent employee solicitation by union representatives at the worksite. The U.S. Supreme Court has issued several rulings in this area that continue to redefine the relative positions of unions and management. Generally, an employer can restrict nonemployee access to employees if two conditions have been met: (1) The nonemployee—in this case, a union organizer—must have some reasonable means to access and communicate with employees outside the workplace, such as electronic or print media, and (2) the employer must have a general ban on all nonemployee solicitation. The latter condition is not limited to union solicitation; it might also include charitable appeals, blood drives, or employersponsored outings for which employees have to pay. If these two conditions are met, then the employer can restrict union organizers’ access to employees. Historically, this issue of access to employees has involved somewhat of a “chess game” between employers and union organizers. Subsequent to the Supreme Court rulings described above that restrict union organizer access to employees, unions have turned to a strategy called “salting” the workplace. Salting involves a paid union organizer applying for employment with an employer whose employees are the target of an organizing drive. The Supreme Court has held that under the NLRA, an employer cannot discriminate against a person solely on the basis of his or her status as a salt and intention to organize the workplace. Employers have since countered salting efforts through the use of restricted hiring criteria that have the effect of eliminating salts from employment consideration. The portrayal of union organizing efforts and management responses as a chess game relates to the fact that each side is attempting to develop a response to counter the other side’s most recent “move” or court victory. Employees who are dissatisfied with their union representative may elect to decertify the union. The process for decertification happens in exactly the same manner as certification—utilizing autho-rization cards and requiring a 50 percent plus one majority employee vote. The NLRA does, however, require employees to wait at least one year from certification until a decertification election can be held. This is to ensure that the union has had appropriate time to work on behalf of the employees and to ensure that employees do not drain the time and resources of the NLRB by continually calling for certification and decertification elections. Similarly, if a union loses an organizing campaign, the NLRA prohibits another organizing campaign and election for at least one year. Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200202 Collective Bargaining When a union is elected to represent employees, the union representative and employer are jointly responsible for negotiating a collective-bargaining agreement that covers various terms and con-ditions of employment. There are no set requirements as to the term or content of any collective-bargaining agreement, but the NLRA classifies bargaining items as mandatory, permissive, or prohibited. Mandatory items must be negotiated in good faith if one party chooses to introduce them to the negotiations. They consist of many of the economic terms of employment, such as wages, hours, benefits, working conditions, job-posting procedures, or job security provisions. Mandatory items also include management rights clauses and union security clauses. The two parties are not required to come to an agreement on these items, but they are legally required to discuss them and bargain in good faith if requested by the other party. “Mandatory” simply means that one party can-not refuse to discuss one of these items if the other party requests to do so. Permissive items can be discussed if both parties agree to do so. Neither party can legally force the other party to negotiate over a permissive item nor can either party pursue a permissive item to the point of impasse. Permissive items include things such as changes in benefits for retired employ-ees, supervisory compensation and discipline, and union input in pricing of company products and services. Prohibited items are things neither party can negotiate because these items are illegal. They include featherbedding (requiring the employer to pay for work not done or not requested), discrim-ination in hiring, or any other violation of the law or illegal union security clauses. A listing of some of the items that fall under each classification is presented in Exhibit 12.1. Unions often attempt to negotiate security clauses into the collective-bargaining agreement. These clauses are a mandatory bargaining item and an attempt to ensure that the union enjoys some security in its representation of employees and that the cost of the union’s efforts on behalf of employ-ees is covered. The two types of union security clauses are union shop agreements and agency shop agreements. Union shop agreements require all newly hired employees who are not union members to join the union within a specified time period after beginning employment. Agency shop agree-ments do not require employees to join the union but require all nonunion members who are part of the bargaining unit to pay the union a representation fee, usually equivalent to the amount of dues paid by union members. The rationale for collecting such fees is that although individual employees can maintain the freedom of being nonunion, as bargaining unit members, they reap the advan-tages of what the union negotiates. Therefore, it is only fair that they should share equally in the cost of obtaining what the union is able to achieve for the bargaining unit. Although union security clauses are a mandatory bargaining item, the NLRA allows individual states to pass right-towork laws that prohibit union and agency shop arrangements. To date, nearly half the 50 states have passed such laws. When Michigan, the birthplace of the United Auto Workers and the U.S. labor movement, became the 24th right-to-work state in December 2012, the move was seen by many as a crushing blow to the future of organized labor in the United States.12 A third type of union security agreement that was originally allowed under the NLRA has since been outlawed. Closed-shop agreements required the employer to hire only applicants who were already union members. Congress found such arrangements to be detrimental to labor because indi-viduals without income were forced to pay union dues without the benefit of any employment. There was no guarantee that an applicant who belonged to a union subsequently would be hired, and so closed-shop agreements were eventually outlawed. Failure to Reach Agreement When the union and the employer are unable to agree on the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement, workers have the right—under the NLRA—to strike. Whether employers are obligated to rehire striking employees at the conclusion of the strike depends on the kind of strike. An economic strike is one in which the parties have negotiated in good faith but have been unable to settle on a contract or collective-bargaining agreement. The organization has the right to continue to operate during such a strike and often does so by utilizing management employees, hir-ing temporary workers, and/or hiring permanent replacements. The discretion of how to proceed rests with the organization. Economic strikers cannot be terminated simply for engaging in collec-tive strike activity. At the conclusion of the strike, they must be reinstated if two conditions are met: (1) Their individual jobs still exist and (2) permanent replacements have not been hired. Economic strikers run the risk that the employer may eliminate their jobs or hire replacements; both activities are protected under the NLRA. An unfair labor practice strike is one in which employees strike in response to some action of management that the NLRA identifies as an unfair labor practice. These behaviors are outlined within the statute, and workers who go out on such a strike have a guaranteed legal right to reinstate-ment by the employer even if the employer has hired permanent replacements in the interim. A wildcat strike is one in which workers decide not to honor the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement and walk out in violation of their obligation to the employer under the agree-ment. Because wildcat strikers have breached their contractual obligations to the employer, they have no right to reinstatement in their jobs. Wildcat strikes can be caused by perceived unfair treatment of an employee by management or a worksite may be perceived as hazardous or dangerous, such as those found in the mining and construction industries. In certain industries, management will attempt to resolve the issue if the claims are deemed to have merit in lieu of fighting the union in court. In addition, federal workers are prohibited by law from striking for any reason, including an economic strike. Any strike by federal employees is not protected under the NLRA, and striking employees have no legal rights to return to their jobs. Such was the case in the early 1980s when the PATCO union struck, and President Reagan immediately fired and replaced the striking workers. The incidence of labor strikes in the United States is decreasing as both employees and employ-ers realize that everyone loses during a strike. The company gets hurt financially and in the pub-lic domain; workers get hurt financially and emotionally; customers may be hurt operationally and financially, particularly if there are no substitute providers. Organizations can prevent strike activity in two principal ways: through the use of a formal grievance procedure or through the alternate dis-pute resolution (ADR) processes of mediation or arbitration. Grievance procedures are a permissive bargaining item under the National Labor Relations Act, as indicated in Exhibit 12.1. Grievance procedures outline how conflicts or disagreements between workers and management over the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement are handled. Griev-ance procedures are often the catalyst to resolving problems before the conflict escalates to a strike. They are also useful in helping union leaders and management identify weaknesses or oversights in the collective-bargaining agreement that can be addressed during the negotiations over subsequent collective-bargaining agreements. Grievance procedures are also useful as a means of communi-cating to management firsthand work-related sources of employee dissatisfaction that can hamper morale and productivity. An increasing number of collectivebargaining agreements are calling for mediation or arbitra-tion of labor disputes as a means of avoiding strikes. Mediation involves an outside third party who has no binding decision-making authority assisting both sides in reaching a settlement. This indi-vidual assists the two sides in finding some middle ground on which they can agree and in facilitat-ing dialogue and concessions. Arbitration works in a similar manner: It involves an outside, unbiased third party who listens to the arguments presented by both sides. However, the arbitrator renders a ruling or decision that binds both parties. Both sides agree to abide by the decision of the arbitrator prior to entering the arbitration hearing. Mediation is frequently used in public sector organizations where strike activity is outlawed at the federal level and often greatly restricted at the state and local levels. Arbitration is used quite frequently in professional sports in resolving salary disputes between union players and the owners of their teams. Arbitration has been controversial in that it has been perceived as depriving employees of their rights to pursue claims in courts of law and have their cases heard by a jury and replacing this pro-cess with an employer-controlled system that is less likely to result in a favorable decision for the employee. However, history has shown that this is not the case. Employment-related cases heard in federal district courts historically have resulted in a 12 percent rate of success for employees, while general employment arbitration has favored employees in 33 percent of cases decided, and labor arbitration—heard under a collective-bargaining agreement—has favored employees in 52 percent of cases. Unions Today One way in which unions are attempting to maintain their viability in light of declining membership is to recruit in organizations and industries with which they have no previous affiliation. With the demise of their traditional manufacturing base, many domestic unions have expanded their mis-sions, as efforts to recruit new members have become a top priority. Such recruiting efforts are seen as so central to the ongoing livelihood of unions that the AFL-CIO now earmarks one-third of its operating budget for organizing, compared to just 5 percent 10 years ago.14 Consider the diversity now present in some of the leading labor unions: the United Steelworkers of America, established in 1936 to represent steelworkers, now includes employees from Good Humor-Breyers, the Baltimore Zoo, and Louisville Slugger; the United Auto Workers, established in 1935 to represent auto workers, now includes employees from Miller Beer, Planters nuts, Kohler bathroom fixtures, Yamaha musical instruments, and Folgers Coffee; the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, established in 1903 to represent drivers in the freight-moving industry, now includes flight attendants, public defenders, and nursing home employees. There is no consensus regarding the value of such diversification by unions. Some argue that it provides more power to unions and their members by strengthening their numbers and preventing their dependence on one particular industry. On the other hand, critics argue that this prevents unions from being very influential in setting wages and policy in a particular industry, given the need to spread time and resources across multiple industries. However, given the demise of traditional manufacturing jobs from which unions originated and relied on for their support and power, unions have little choice but to reach out to new industries. The critical issue is whether this diversification is really strategic for the union or merely opportunistic. Another strategy being used to reach potential members is partnering with organizations with whom the union shares the goal of empowering workers and increasing wages. This activity often involves collaboration with worker centers. First established in the early 1990s, there are now more than 200 worker centers in the United States. Many of these worker centers serve immigrant populations in a local area and target individuals who work in low-wage, low-skilled, highturnover industries such as fast food, home health care, farming, and retail. Worker centers provide advocacy, lobbying, job training, and legal advice and are typically legally registered nonprofit organizations that are funded primarily by foundations, although some charge nominal membership fees. Exam-ples of such are the Koreatown Immigrant Workers of Los Angeles and the Coalition of Immokalee Workers in Florida. Because worker centers are not unions, they are not subject to the terms of the National Labor Relations Act nor are they regulated by the National Labor Relations Board or any other entity. They do not have to disclose the sources of their funding or provide detailed information regarding their activities and finances as unions do. They are free to engage in activity that would not be permit-ted or would be discouraged by unions, such as picketing, and they do not have to gain approval from a majority of workers and become certified before presenting demands to management. Unions are increasingly developing partnerships with worker centers by having their representatives join the centers and then convert members into dues-paying union members. While employers argue that worker centers are nothing more than covert union activity, which attempts to circumvent the NLRA, they are becoming more prevalent and a key means by which union representatives seek to expand their dwindling membership ranks. Another new development in how unions operate is their reliance on technology. Unions have been using the Internet effectively to recruit new members, particularly those in technology-based industries, and to gain support from others in their organizing efforts. The South Bay Central Labor Council, based in California’s Silicon Valley, consists of 110 affiliated unions that represent more than 100,000 employees in the area. The Council is using the Internet to communicate with and, it is hoped, organize contingent workers.15 Similarly, the Service Employees International Union under-took a campaign to organize janitorial workers in the Silicon Valley. The union successfully used the Internet to publicize its case against Apple Computer, Oracle, and Hewlett-Packard worldwide via electronic bulletin boards that informed engineers and programmers about the wages and working conditions of those who cleaned their offices at night.16 Finally, the Oakland-based Local 2850 of the Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees International Union used the Internet in a campaign against software giant PeopleSoft. In attempting to organize workers from a hotel used extensively by PeopleSoft and its corporate partners and unable to gain the support of PeopleSoft, the union launched an Internet campaign that caused PeopleSoft’s stock value to decline by more than $63 mil-lion, according to the company’s own estimates.17 The NLRB has also considered the role of technology as it relates to worker rights under the NLRA. Given its charge to ensure that employees are able to communicate freely with each other about wages and all other conditions and terms of employment, the NLRB has endorsed e-mail com-munication between employees as a means of safeguarding those rights. Only when an employee’s behavior is disruptive does NLRA protection cease. As a result, employer policies that ban all nonbusiness and/or personal use of e-mail may interfere with the right to self-organize and therefore constitute a violation of the NLRA. A key issue here is the extent to which employees normally use the employer’s computer system for their regular work and communication with coworkers. Employees who normally use a computer system in carrying out their regular job responsibilities are considered differently from employees who generally do not use computers or e-mail to carry out their regular job responsibilities. In addition, the more e-mail is normally used in the workplace, the less restrictive a policy an employer can implement that regulates communication that might be considered protected concerted activity under the NLRA.18 In recent years, the proliferation of social media has greatly altered the means by which employees communicate with each other, both inside and outside of the workplace. The National Labor Relations Board has provided protection to some employees who have had adverse action taken against them by their employers due to their social media communications and postings. Reading 12.1, “Social Media, Employee Privacy and Concerted Activity: Brave New World or Big Brother?,” discusses issues surrounding employee privacy and how social media posting by employ-ees may fall with NLRA protection Broader employer policies regarding employee electronic communications have also been targeted by the National Labor Relations Board. Warehouse retailer Costco had a policy which prohibited employees from making defamatory statement deemed unlawful by the NLRB. Specifi-cally, the policy stated, “Employees should be aware that statements posted electronically (such as to online message boards or discussion groups) that damage the company, defame any individual or damage any person’s reputation or violate policies outlined in the Costco Employee Agreement, may be subject to discipline, up to and including termination of employment.” The NLRB found the prohibition to be too broad and designed to squelch employee concerted communications with each other.19 As part of the same decision, the NLRB also struck down Costco rules that prohibited employees from (1) posting, distributing, removing, or altering any material on company property; (2) discussing “private matters of members and other employees, including topics such as, but not limited to, sick calls, leaves of absence, FMLA call-outs, ADA accommodations, workers’ compen-sation injuries, personal health information, etc.”; (3) sharing, transmitting, or storing for personal or public use without prior management approval sensitive personal information such as member-ship, payroll, confidential credit card numbers, Social Security numbers, or employee personal health information.20 To guide employers, the NLRB has prepared three separate updated social media reports, which describe all social media cases reviewed by the agency. These documents provide guidance to employers in formulating social media policies that will comply with federal labor laws.21 Their two main advisories for employers are (1) employer policies should not be so sweeping that they prohibit the kinds of activity protected by federal labor law, such as the discussion of wages or working condi-tions among employees; and (2) an employee’s comments on social media are generally not protected if they are mere gripes not made in relation to group activity among employees. Conclusion law. However, union membership is declining in America; unions in this country probably will not survive if they continue to display traditional adversarial relationships with employers. Traditional approaches to negotiation usually involved the union trying to gain concessions from management and winning the negotiation. To be successful in the future, unions must develop partnerships with employers and seek win-win outcomes to collective bargaining that strengthen both the union’s position and employees’ rights and enhance the performance of the organization. Rigid posturing by unions in attempting to maintain the status quo works against the many initiatives and innova-tions organizations develop as they attempt to respond to changes in their environments and remain more competitive. Reading 12.2, “The Labor Movement and the Dilemma of Direct Confrontation” explores the historical and traditional means of union attempts to neutralize power in organizations and proposes a new means of accomplishing this end. Given the changing nature of organizations and work, unions clearly need to reinvent them-selves. Unions need to consider that the jobs of today and those of the future are quite different from the jobs of the past. Increasing global competition, changing technology, the heightened pace of merger and acquisition activity, the move toward smaller businesses and autonomous divisions, and the increasing diversity in the workforce represent broad changes for unions in the United States. The jobs being created in our economy are more service-than manufacturing-oriented; are much more complex, multifaceted, and broadly designed; involve teams, cooperation, and working with others; and involve more self-or peer supervision than supervision by management. Countries such as Japan and Germany have extensive unionization and produce some of the high-est quality, most technologically advanced products. Their unions facilitate worker involvement, development, and participation programs; also, the unions partner with employers in creating ben-eficial change rather than inhibiting change and attempting to ensure workers’ rights by maintain-ing the status quo. As unions decline in number and stature, workers become less powerful. Without union representation, employee interests can only be advanced through increased government regulation of the employment relationship or through innovative and responsive HR programs that organizations initiate themselves. Increased legislation may ensure worker rights, but it can also inhibit organiza-tional flexibility and change. Innovative HR programs can provide workers with benefits, but usually, the organization retains power and control over the workers, who maintain their individual status in dealing with separate issues with the employer. Legislation preserves rights and empowers work-ers to a limited extent, but it inhibits change. Organization-designed initiatives can promote change but still leave individual workers at a disadvantage when dealing with employers on issues of equity. Hence, policymakers need to take a critical look at the institution of collective bargaining to deter-mine whether it has lived up to the ideals Congress established for it under the NLRA. Very few unionized companies have developed effective worker participation programs because unions are interested in keeping workers insulated from management issues. Ironically, however, successful employee participation programs in nonunionized organizations have actually increased workers’ power and voice in dealing with management. Union leaders need to create a new model of worker representation if they plan to survive in the twenty-first century. This can only be done if union leaders rethink their roles and adopt collective-bargaining strategies that allow both the employees and employers to benefit. Union leaders need not only political and negotiating skills but also management skills in understanding the whole organization: strategic issues facing the employer and the organization’s environment. Instead of seeing themselves as adversaries to management, they should envision themselves as facilitators and consultants. Although employers clearly need to con-sider labor relations from a strategic perspective, union representatives must do so even more if they are to keep their unions viable for tomorrow’s organizations. READING 12.1 Social Media, employee privacy and Concerted activity: Brave New World or Big Brother? Jeffrey a. Mello Introduction Advances in technology that allow tremendous portabil-ity and affordability of personal computers, personal digital assistants, and tablet devices combined with the proliferation of social media networking sites have changed the way in which we communicate, both privately and publicly. Indi-viduals are now afforded the means to communicate with friends, coworkers and even strangers via networks that until very recently were not available. While email has existed for several decades, new social media, particularly Facebook and Twitter, have not only greatly altered how individuals and organizations communicate, but also have changed the ways in which business is conducted as well as how peo-ple interact with each other in many of their personal and professional dealings. As of December 2011, Facebook had more than 800 mil-lion active users, half of whom log on to the site on a daily basis and half of whom access Facebook through their mobile devices.1 Roughly 200 million of these members are in the United States, representing two-thirds of the population.2 Facebook is currently available in more than 70 languages around the world3 global Internet users.4 lion users,5 and is estimated to reach 30 percent of Twitter has approximately 300 mil-although participation in both sites contin-ues to expand in both numbers of members and volume of communications. The use of social networking is not limited to personal communications. Forty-six percent of information technol-ogy professionals believe that online social networking is an important business tool and 31 percent of that number consider it to be essential to contemporary business. More than 25 percent of organizations with 500 or more employees have developed some sort of social networking presences as a business tool.6 A recent poll conducted of human resource professionals by the Society for Human Resource Manage-ment found that 68% of organizations were using social media for external communications, recruiting and market-ing to engage customers, potential customers and potential employees.7 Employers see tremendous benefit from social networking which include facilitating collaboration among employees, improved efficiencies in operations, facilitation of orientation and learning, internal brand building, employee and organizational development and faster development of new products and services.8 sionals acknowledge that they are aware of employees visit-ing social networking sites for personal usage while at work.9 The use of online social media has contributed to the further blurring of the separation between employees’ work and per-sonal lives. Society for Human Resource Management found that 68 percent of organizations were using social media for external communications, recruiting, and marketing to engage customers, potential customers, and potential employees.10 Employers see tremendous benefits from social networking which include facilitating collaboration among employees, improved efficiencies in operations, facilitation of orientation and learning, internal brand building, employee and organi-zational development, and faster development of new prod-ucts and services.11 acknowledge that they are aware of employees visiting social networking sites for personal usage while at work.12 However, 85% of IT profes-However, 85 percent of IT professionals The use of online social media has contributed to the further blurring of the separation between employees’ work and personal lives. Traditional Employer Monitoring—E-mail and Internet Usage A significant number of employers monitor the commu-nications and online activities of their employees in the workplace.13 monitoring their employees’ Internet use in 2007, the most recent year in which a reliable widespread survey was admin-istered.14 tions policies that alert employees that the employer reserves the right to conduct such monitoring. E-mail activity is also widely monitored.15 Most large employers have electronic communica-Most of this monitoring is accomplished not manually but electronically via software programs which can track time, content, size, attachments, and recipients.16 This tracking can also be used on personal e-mail accounts (such as those from AOL, Yahoo and Google) which are accessed from the employer’s network.17 Ninety-six percent of employers who monitor employee e-mails track incoming as well as outgoing messages.18 It is, however, more difficult for employers to monitor text and email messages sent from employees’ personally owned communication devices than from those provided by the employer. There are many reasons why employers engage in monitor-ing the electronic communications of their employees. The first is to protect the employer from a variety of legal liabilities that could come about as the result of the content of such communi-cations. Reporting requirements imposed under the Sarbanes-Oxley ...