Do Nice Employees Finish Last?

It's an age-old question that comes in many forms. Do nice employees finish last? Is it better to be feared than loved? Does the squeaky wheel really get the grease? As much as the business world is portrayed as cold and heartless, it is not necessarily true that nice employees finish last, or that success requires being a bit of a jerk.

Rather than being one dimensional--either a terror or a softie--it is advantageous to have a tough streak that can be applied when necessary. This requires being able to read situations correctly, including one's own strengths and weaknesses, the nature of the organization, and the demands of the problem or opportunity at hand.

Trump or Buffett?

Looking at role models among successful people can provide conflicting answers to the question of whether nice employees finish last. Donald Trump, who is arguably the world's most high-profile boss, seems to pride himself on exhibiting boorish behavior. This is the animal-kingdom approach to leadership, where being a leader means being able to periodically assert your dominance over the rest of the pack, which in turn keeps the pack in line and amplifies the leader's power.

However, before anyone assumes this is the sole blueprint for success, they should consider another example. Not the world's most high-profile boss, but simply the world's richest man: Warren Buffett. Since money is the business world's means of keeping score, Buffett's fortune, earned at the helm of Berkshire Hathaway, would put him at the top of the heap. In contrast to Trump, Buffett is known for his folksy charm, proving that there is more than one path to success.

What to Consider Before Playing Hardball

As for which role model today's employees should follow, the answer might be to draw from both. Certainly, being easygoing and accommodating all the time would probably result in a person being overlooked and bypassed for opportunities, but the Attila-the-Hun act can lead to spectacular career flameouts. To help determine the right approach, here are five questions an employee should think about before deciding to play hardball.

• What is the culture of the organization?

he tough-guy (or gal) act will play better in some companies than others. For example Wall Street firms are notorious for audacious displays of power by executives. Move to the West Coast though and many Internet firms prefer a more supportive and collaborative approach. In between, the range is as wide culturally as it is geographically, and it is important for employees to understand the ethos of their own firms. It is important to know whether one is expected to run with the bulls or to avoid being a bull in a china shop.

As a general rule, keep in mind that a Harvard Business School survey found that people would rather work with a lovable fool than a competent jerk. Whether this is right or wrong is immaterial--it's simply the way people are. The competent jerk's skills may be devalued just because other employees don't want input or involvement from someone they can't stand.

• Who are the other players?

A company may be a bare-knuckles environment, but it's always wise to check out the strength of the competition before starting a fight. A corporate culture that embraces open competition is likely to attract a wide field of people willing to play tough. Especially when dealing with more experienced people it is important that an employee choose carefully when and how to take them on. Here's where a little diplomacy can be a nice complement to more confrontational attributes, because building alliances might be the only way to get around more entrenched employees.

• Does the employee have indispensable skills?

Being assertive works very well for employees who have indispensable skills. Someone who is hard to replace can afford to be a little more demanding. On the other hand, an employee who does not add value or is easily replaced can ill afford to make waves. In other words, someone should not risk becoming a problem employee if the easiest solution to that problem is to find a replacement.

• What is the employee's true nature?

Not everyone is cut out to be a type "A" personality. People who aren't really cutthroat by nature tend to fail when they try to act that way, and they make themselves miserable in the process. People who do best at the take-no-prisoners approach to business are those who instinctively think of life as a personal competition that they are driven to win. This certainly does not mean more mild-mannered sorts can't be successful. It's just that the Trumps of the world have to act like the Trumps, and the Buffetts have to act like the Buffetts. Any attempt to act otherwise will soon wear thin.

• What are the employee's career goals?

Long-term career goals also make a difference in how a person should act in the workplace. Someone who has the CEO's office in mind needs to make an impression early and often. This doesn't necessarily mean stepping on toes, but chances are a race to the top slot will entail demonstrating dominance over other competitors somewhere along the line. On the other hand, most people have no interest in the pressures and commitment the top slot entails. For employees who want purely to find a comfortable niche within an organization, making waves is the wrong way to go.

The Winning Formula

For those keeping score--and in the corporate world, just about everybody is--Warren Buffett is currently considered the world's richest man, while Donald Trump failed to crack the top 100. Still, Trump's ruthless approach has made him a billionaire in his own right, proving that there is more than one path to a successful career.

For most people, the winning formula might be to blend a little of both approaches. It's good to show ambition, willingness to make tough decisions, and the ability to stand one's ground when necessary. At the same time, wrapping that iron fist in a velvet glove of good manners and teamwork will make an employee more likely to be sought out for opportunities.

About the Author:
Kelli Smith is the senior editor for www.Edu411.org. Edu411.org is a career education directory for finding colleges and universities, training schools , and technical institutes.

The NLRA Provides Significant Rights and Protections to Nonunion Employees

Employees do not need to be union members to be protected by the National Labor Relations Act. The NLRA is generally perceived as protecting just union employees, but the Act really protects and gives rights to both union and nonunion employees. The NLRA gives every employee the right to engage in activities for the mutual aid and protection of employees, including activities that impact the terms and conditions of employment. Employers cannot interfere with or, in any way, discipline employees who exercise their NLRA rights. That includes nonunion employees who exercise their NLRA rights.

The most common way that employers violate nonunion employees’ NLRA rights is by attempting to limit employees’ communication about their employment with other employees or nonemployees. The NLRA gives all employees the right to discuss the terms and conditions of their employment. This means that employees have the right to discuss their compensation; working conditions; discrimination, harassment, and retaliation complaints against the company, etc. And, employers commit an unfair labor practice if they infringe on or attempt to stop that communication. The Ellison Media Company case demonstrates the breadth of these rights.

In Ellison Media Company, Daniel Miller believed that he heard Joel Gable (a manager) make a sexually suggestive comment and he confronted Gable. Miller then drafted an email to his coworker Mary Christie to tell her about the comment and confrontation. Miller accidentally sent the email to Gable instead of Christie. Gable asked that Miller meet with him. During their meeting, Gable held up a copy of Miller’s email and said “this needs to stop now.” Gable then said that he was tired of the gossiping and would terminate Miller and Christie if he saw them discussing the matter again.

The test of whether conduct is prohibited by the NLRA is whether the conduct “may reasonably be said, to interfere with the free exercise of employment rights under the Act.” The NLRB found that Gable’s statement “this needs to stop now” was unlawful because “it reasonably tended to interfere with Miller’s free exercise of his Section 7 right to discuss sexual harassment complaints with other employees.” The NLRB also found that Gable’s threat of termination was unlawful because Gable’s threat “would reasonably be interpreted to mean that Miller would be discharged if he continued to exercise his protected right to discuss the comment with Christie.” The interesting thing about the Ellison Media Company case is that many employers and employees believe that Gable’s conduct is acceptable but, in actuality, his conduct is prohibited by the NLRA. Nonunion employees have the right to discuss the terms and condition of their employment.

Many employees mistakenly believe that NLRA only protects group actions, not individual employee action. But, as Dr. Kristine McCallum’s case illustrates, the NLRA protects nonunion employees who act alone provided the employee’s actions are directed toward group rights or the terms and conditions of employment. Dr. Kristine McCallum was a board certified family physician who worked under contract at Family Healthcare Inc. Family Healthcare proposed a new contract for its physicians that forced them to accept less compensation or work longer hours. After a couple unsuccessful negotiation meetings, Dr. McCallum informed Family Healthcare that she and other physicians were going to withdraw their hospital privileges to protest the terms of the new contract. On July 2, 2008, Dr. McCallum submitted her withdrawal of privileges and the withdrawal of privileges of six other physicians. Family Healthcare “summoned Dr. McCallum to a meeting and handed her a short letter terminating her employment contract.”

When faced with an unfair labor practice claim, Family Healthcare alleged that Dr. McCallum was terminated because she was disrespectful in rolling her eyes, huffing, and slamming her hand on the desk multiple times. The NLRB saw through that fictitious rationale and stated that “it is crystal clear that [Family Healthcare] would not have terminated Dr. McCallum in the absence of her challenge to the new contract and her concerted activity with other [ ] physicians to withdraw their hospital privileges in light of the new [ ]contract.” The NLRB held that Dr. McCallum (a nonunion employee) was protected by Section 7 of the NLRA because her challenges were protected concerted activity. The NLRB also held that Family Healthcare violated Section 8 of the NLRA in terminating Dr. McCallum’s employment in retaliation for her protected concerted activity. The Board ordered Family Healthcare to reinstate Dr. McCallum and give her back pay. The NLRA protects individual employees who challenge the terms and conditions of employment.

Employees are familiar with federal employment legislation such as Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. But, employees need to know that there are many other laws that provide protections and create rights for employees. The National Labor Relations Act is one of those lesser known laws that provides significant protections to all employees, union and nonunion.

Employees May Have Privacy Rights in their Personal Emails on Company Computers

Most employees just accept the fact that their employer can access any content that is on a company computer, including employees’ personal emails and other personal information. But, is that the law? A growing number of courts are recognizing that employees have some expectation of privacy with respect to their personal content on company computers. Some recent decisions have held that employers do not own and cannot access their employees’ personal emails not even when those emails were sent on a company computer.

Marina Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc. is a workplace privacy case that was decided on June 26, 2009. Marina Stengart worked as an Executive Director of Nursing at Loving Care Agency, Inc. Loving Care provided Stengart with a company computer and an email address to accomplish her work duties. Loving Care had an electronic communications policy which stated that emails, internet use and computer files are considered the company’s property and “are not to be considered private or personal to any individual employee.” The policy also stated that the company had “the right to review, audit, intercept, access, and disclose all matters on the company’s media systems and services at any time, with or without notice.”

Stengart used her company computer to email her attorneys about filing a discrimination lawsuit against Loving Care. But, Stengart did not use her company email address. She emailed her attorneys with her personal, password protected Yahoo email account while using her company computer. Stengart resigned from her employment and sued Loving Care for discrimination. Loving Care then searched Stengart’s company computer and, pursuant to its electronic communications policy, read the emails Stengart exchanged with her attorneys. Stengart angered by Loving Care’s reading of her personal emails, asked the Court to decide if Loving Care had the right under its electronic communications policy to read emails she sent to her attorneys through her personal email account on her company computer.

The Stengart Court rejected the notion that an employee’s personal emails become company property simply because the company owns the computer, claiming that a company computer in this setting is little more than a file cabinet: "Property rights are no less offended when an employer examines documents stored on a computer as when an employer rifles through a folder containing an employee’s private papers or reaches in and examines the contents of an employee’s pockets; indeed, even when a legitimate business purpose could support such a search, we can envision no valid precept of property law that would convert the employer’s interest in determining what is in those locations with a right to own the contents of the employee’s folder of private papers or the contents of his pocket." The Court ruled against Loving Care, concluding that an employer cannot “transform all private communications into company property -- merely because the company owned the computer used to make the private communications or used to access such private information during work hours.”

Marina Stengart asked the Court if her employer had the right to view her personal emails. Bonnie Van Alstyne took the workplace privacy notion a step further when she sued her former employer for accessing her personal emails. Bonnie Van Alstyne worked as a Vice President at Electronic Scriptorium Limited, a small data conversion company owned and operated by Edward Leonard. Van Alstyne had a company email account, but she occasionally used her personal AOL email account to conduct business. Van Alstyne’s employment was terminated and she filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against the company. During the discovery process, Van Alstyne learned that Edward Leonard accessed her personal email account both during and after her employment. Leonard produced 258 emails he had printed from Van Alstyne’s personal email account.

Van Alstyne filed a separate lawsuit against Leonard, Bonnie Van Alstyne v. Electronic Scriptorium Limited, et al. Her lawsuit alleged that Leonard violated the Stored Communications Act when he accessed her personal email account and viewed her emails. The Stored Communications Act creates criminal and civil liability for any individual who “intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided” or “intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility” and “obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in such system.” In other words, the Stored Communication Act prohibits an individual from, among other things, intentionally accessing other people’s stored emails, voicemails, text messages, etc. without permission. A jury found that Leonard violated the Stored Communications Act and awarded Van Alstyne $250,000 in compensatory and punitive damages and more than $136,000 in attorneys fees and costs.

The law is changing. Courts are recognizing that employees have a right to privacy in their personal emails even when those emails are sent on company computers and even when company policy says otherwise. But, both Marina Stengart’s and Bonnie Van Alstyne’s employers read their personal emails which gave their employers valuable defensive information and severely prejudiced Stengart and Van Alstyne in their pending lawsuits. A lawsuit cannot unring that bell. And, Stengart and Van Alstyne were forced into lengthy, costly legal battles to enforce their privacy rights. It is encouraging that courts are recognizing employee privacy rights and giving employees remedies when those rights are violated. However, the best course of action is to keep your personal email and your company computer separate thereby eliminating any possibility that your employer will view your personal emails.