Saturday May 26, 2018

15 crazy sacrifices workers will make for 10% raise

After years of paltry wage increases that barely keep pace with inflation, it looks like employees would be willing to take some desperate steps to achieve a significant pay bump.

Just how much would workers be willing to give up for a fatter paycheck?

Who needs health care, SSI or voting right?

LendEDU recently polled 1,238 U.S. workers and asked them what they’d be willing to sacrifice for a 10% pay raise. Here are their responses:

  • 88.6% would stop watching “Game of Thrones” for life
  • 73.4% would give up all alcoholic beverages for the next five years
  • 55.9% would work an extra 10 hours per week for life (even though that probably takes the “raise” out of the equation)
  • 53.6% would give up all social media for five years
  • 50.7% would give up watching movies for the next three years
  • 50.4% would work one day every weekend for the next year
  • 47.7% would give up all caffeinated products for the next two years
  • 43.9% would give up exercise for the next five years
  • 34.9% would “give up the right to vote in all elections for life”
  • 18.9% would give up access to health insurance for the next five years
  • 17.9% would give up Social Security benefits for the next two years
  • 15.3% would give up all of their vacation days for the next five years
  • 12.2% would break up with their partner or significant other
  • 9.1% would give up their child’s or future child’s right to vote in all elections for life, and
  • 5.3% would eat a single Tide Pod.

No laughing matter

While this study was clearly conducted mainly for entertainment purposes, it’s no laughing matter when staffers march into HR demanding a raise and the company simply doesn’t have the funds to accommodate them.

While there’s no way to guarantee employees’ feelings don’t get hurt, there are certain things HR pros can do to minimize the damage. Here are five of those tactics:

1. Consider the offer carefully. A hasty denial is a surefire way to offend or insult the employee. Reason: It looks like the request is simply being blown off. Instead, allow the employee to make his or her case and listen attentively.

2. Ask about the details. Has the employee taken on more responsibilities that you weren’t aware of? Has his or her pay fallen well below the market rate? Even if you can’t bump up pay right now, it’s good to have that info on file for when you can.

3. Break down the decision. Carefully explain why the raise request is being denied and offer details if performance is a major factor. Good employees will appreciate the feedback and make the necessary changes.

4. Use work as a “reward.” If an employee needs to bolster performance to earn a raise in the future, give that staffer a project where they need to develop new skills and priorities.

5. End it on a high note. Let the employee know you appreciate the initiative he or she took with the request, and do what you can to lift the person’s understandably low spirits before he or she leaves the meeting.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Health costs: How to combat the sneaky increases of generic drugs

While the spotlight is on the skyrocketing cost of specialty drugs right now, the price tag on generics is quietly trending upward. And if employers don’t take some necessary precautions right now, it could lead to some major headaches down the road.

In fact, there could be as much as a 15% increase in generic pricing in 2018 alone, according to Michael J. Staab, an employment attorney and consult with Innovative Rx Strategies, LLC, an HR consulting firm that specializes in pharmacy benefit costs.

At the 2018 Mid-Sized Retirement and Healthcare Plan Management Conference in San Francisco, Staab explained why generic costs have been increasing significantly and what firms can do to minimize those increases.

A variety of factors

Price inflation for all prescription drugs is estimated to be 9% for 2018.

And generic price increases, specifically, are the result of a variety of factors — e.g., some generics are in limited supply, fewer drug manufacturers are even making generics, etc.

Because of these factors, a number of generics no longer qualify to be on a PBM’s Maximum Allowable Cost Lists (MAC) and wind up being priced at a higher non-MAC/brand drug rate.

5 cost-control tactics

The good news is there are a number of simple steps employers can take to curb these increases. Staab urged employers to:

  • Monitor the deletion of of generics from your PBM’s MAC list. Get the list (you’ll probably have to ask for it) and find out why drugs were deleted or added.
  • Understand what is and what isn’t in your PBM’s “generic bucket.” Again, this may involve some pointed questions directed at your PBM, but if you don’t know you could be unknowingly charged at the brand rate for drugs you though were generics.
  • Don’t allow non-MAC generics to be priced at brand discount.
  • Negotiate a Generic Effective Rate (GER) guarantee that includes all generic drug claims. The GER is average discount on Average Wholesale Price (AWP) the PBM will take when it sets its MAC prices for generics. Staab told attendees that now is a good time negotiate with PBMs — especially if you’re in the second year of a three-year contract — because there’s a lot of competition among PBMs and your pharmacy benefit manager doesn’t want to lose you.
  • Set up preferred/non-preferred generic copays for employees. Also, adding minimum copays for generics can create zero-balance due (ZBD) claims for you. Staab used the example of a minimum generic copay as low as $15. At that minor amount, 45% to 50% of all generic claims have a $0 cost to the employer.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

85% of resumes contain lies: 3 ways to spot and stop them

It’s not surprising some job applicants feel the need to embellish their resumes to get a better shot at a job. But the exact number — now 85% — has risen dramatically over the past few years. 

Resume lies have become so common that a lot of dishonest applicants are going undetected. Whether this is due to increasing pressure to fill positions quickly or trusting HR pros, a survey by SimplyHired discovered that 46% of hiring managers fail to check references, and 65% don’t verify a candidate’s education.

Even more shockingly, 16% of those surveyed don’t have time to read the whole resume, and 34% just skim over the cover letter.

This means there’s a pretty good chance a lot of applicants have gotten away with a lie, so they’re going to keep trying.

Why candidates really lie

While any lie seems devious, it’s a misconception that every resume exaggerator is trying to con their way into a job they aren’t qualified for. Some candidates are resorting to fudging the truth out of frustration, and not necessarily intentional deception.

More and more applicants are aware that companies use screening software to automatically eliminate resumes that don’t contain certain keywords or don’t meet minimum requirements. This often results in candidates never hearing back about a position and not getting a real shot at a job.

To prevent themselves from being weeded out right from the get-go, candidates will tweak their resumes to better fit a position by including as many keywords or requirements as they can.

Tammy Cohen, founder of InfoMart, a company that specializes in screening job candidates, thinks some companies’ job descriptions can be the cause of applicants’ embellishments. Unsurprisingly, job postings are often written in a creative, eye-catching way to attract more applicants. To match this style, candidates often jazz up their own resumes to appear to be a good fit for the position.

While small exaggerations can be relatively harmless, some candidates blatantly lie about crucial aspects of the resume.

Here are the top things job seekers lie about, according to a survey by OfficeTeam:

  • job experience (76%)
  • job duties (55%)
  • education (33%), and
  • employment dates (26%).

What to look for

Obviously, big lies in these areas are ones HR pros definitely want to catch. And OfficeTeam has compiled a list of several red flags that can be indicators of dishonesty, along with how hiring managers can find out the truth.

  1. Their skills have vague descriptions. When a candidate is trying to stretch out their list of skills, they may start listing items with phrases like “familiar with” or “involved with.” If someone is “familiar with HTML,” that could mean they took one class in high school and can barely remember anything. If a candidate was “involved with compiling sales reports,” they very well could’ve watched as others on their team did the heavy lifting. Also, watch out for any duties or titles that don’t really make sense — does it seem like a candidate is using more creative words to describe simple tasks?
    The Fix: To make sure candidates have the concrete skills they claim, skills tests can be used as part of the hiring process. To get an even better idea if their skills are up to snuff, you can give the candidate a job audition or hire them on a temporary basis.
  2. Their employment dates are questionable or missing. When a candidate has previous job dates listed by the year instead of month, it can be an attempt to lengthen stints and hide periods of unemployment.
    The Fix: Directly asking candidates what the months of their employment were can help clear this up if they answer truthfully. This can also give them a chance to explain any long gaps in their resumes, too. But if you still sense an applicant isn’t being honest with you, calling references to confirm employment dates is crucial.
  3. Their body language is off during the interview. If a candidate isn’t making eye contact or keeps fidgeting in their chair, this could be an indication of dishonesty. Be careful with this one, though. These could simply be signs of an anxious applicant, not an untruthful one.
    The Fix: If the person is particularly fidgety while discussing a certain part of their resume, keep asking about it. If they can’t seem to answer your questions, they probably exaggerated their skills or experience. It’s also a good idea to ask others who met the candidate if they felt anything was off about the person’s behavior.

A long-term fix

While these tips from OfficeTeam can help you catch resume fibs as you go, there may be something you can do to reduce the amount of candidates who feel the need to lie.

If you use screening software to eliminate applicants who don’t meet certain requirements, examine those keywords and criteria. Are they so essential to the position that anyone without them should be immediately out of the running? Ask yourself if it’s possible a good candidate could be missing a skill or two. If the answer is yes, change those settings.

And as time-consuming as it would be to screen applicants without software, consider it. Candidates would be much more willing to tell the truth from the beginning if they knew a computer wouldn’t automatically weed them out.

Not all lies are created equal

So once you’ve caught a candidate in a lie … what do you do?

Obviously, some resume fibs are more serious than others. And Emily Parra, the HR practice leader at StratEx, a company that provides online HR and payroll management assistance, says it’s up to you to decide what to do.

Parra suggests focusing on what you really need out of the candidate. If they embellished on an unimportant aspect of the resume, but have the qualifications where it counts, it could be worth overlooking the lie.

Some lies should take the candidate out of the running immediately. Big things, like applicants lying about their education or positions they’ve had, clearly show they’re not trustworthy.



Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Was employee fired for strange threat or taking FMLA leave?

Firing an employee around the same time they took FMLA leave is always a tricky situation, but there are some clear-cut instances where an employer can easily defend its decision. 


Tate Clark was a customer service agent for Southwest Airlines. He suffered from migraines and was approved for intermittent FMLA leave, which he took for four years without any issues.

The problem came when a co-worker reported a strange interaction to her supervisors. While she and Clark had been working on a shift together, she spotted him looking at trench coats online. When the co-worker asked if he was going to order it, Clark replied, “No. I wish they made it in black, so I could bring in my shotgun.”

The co-worker said this made her uncomfortable, and mentioned it wasn’t the first time Clark had talked about his guns at work.

After an investigation, Clark was suspended and then fired shortly after that for violating Southwest’s zero tolerance workplace violence policy.

But Clark sued, claiming the company retaliated against him for taking FMLA leave.

Court: ‘No evidence of retaliation’

Clark’s entire claim was based on the fact he had taken time off for a migraine just two days after the incident. Clark’s attorney argued the timing of his termination was very suspicious, and that the company used this incident as an excuse to fire Clark.

But the court decided there was no evidence of retaliation. Clark had been taking intermittent FMLA leave for several years with no pushback from the company.

More importantly, the court ruled that Southwest’s reason for firing Clark was “legitimate and non-discriminatory.” Clark couldn’t prove he didn’t make the threat of violence. He also testified that he knew about the company’s zero tolerance violence policy and received training on it.

This case just goes to show that well-written and enforced policies will help employers back up their termination decisions to a court.

Cite: Clark v. Southwest Airlines Company, U.S. Crt. of App. 5th Circuit, No. 17-51026, 4/18/18.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Why common health plan feature now puts you at great risk for a lawsuit

DOL, FLSA, overtime, compliance

Heads up: A recent lawsuit puts employers in a very tricky spot regarding health plan compliance.

What’s worse, employers can’t even rely on guidance from the feds to protect themselves from illegal action.

That’s because of a recent move by a federal judge in AARP v. EEOC, a lawsuit claiming the government’s health plan incentive rules violate the ADA and GINA.

Illegal wellness incentives?

The above case hinged around the notion of a “voluntary” wellness program. Under the EEOC regs, employers can offer incentives of up to 30% of the total cost of coverage for self-only coverage for participation in company-sponsored wellness programs that include components like HRA and biometric screenings.

The AARP argued that such an incentive ran counter to the “voluntary” requirements of the ADA and GINA because employees who can’t afford to pay 30% more in premiums would essentially be forced to give up protected information they wouldn’t disclosed otherwise.

Essentially, a judge “vacated” the EEOC’s current incentive rules beginning Jan. 1, 2019, and the EEOC has the option of reworking those regs in the interim.

The problem for employers

So why is this so problematic for employers?

First, assuming the EEOC does draft new regs on wellness incentives with a lower incentive threshold, adjusting to the new regs is going to be an administrative hassle that involves reworking plan designs and documents for employers.

But the interim period – the time between now and Jan. 1, 2019 – poses the most issues.

Reason: Even though companies may be able to follow the current EEOC wellness regs during this period, that move is far from a safe legal bet for employers.

Lawsuits like the AARP’s essentially open the door for employees and their sue-happy attorneys to use to attack incentive-based wellness programs.

4 alternatives to risky incentives

If you’re not comfortable taking the risks associated with incentive-based medical exams and health risk assessments (HRAs), there are other options.

Bruce Gillis, Businessolver’s strategy practice leader of health, welfare and compliance, offers the following options for concerned employers:

Give workers more choices. One surefire way to make wellness program participation truly voluntary is by giving workers the option of earning the same incentive in a manner that doesn’t involve biometric screenings or HRAs.

Example: an incentive based on completing an education requirement.

Reduce the incentive. The judge in the AARP case essentially said the current 30% incentive maximum was too high.

Decreasing the amount of your incentives for biometric screenings and/or HRAs not only reduces your risk of being accused of not having a voluntary program, it also sets you up for the future. That’s because the EEOC is likely to reduce the maximum incentive under the
new regs.

Put incentives on hold. While employers wait for further EEOC guidance, the safest move is to fully eliminate wellness incentives.

If you do go this route, you may want to direct the incentive budget toward other benefits employees want – financial wellness, more flexible work arrangements, PTO, etc.

Switch the incentive structure. Finally, employers can restructure their incentives so that no rewards are specifically tied to biometric screenings or HRAs. Gillis uses the example of blood screenings that test for nicotine. Or, instead of using the exam, simply ask employees if they use tobacco and adjust premiums accordingly.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Hiring in today’s labor market: 4 candidate ‘red flags’ you may want to overlook

When the job market was at its worst, recruiters could afford to be more selective with candidates they chose to interview. But, in this tight labor market, recruiters need to find ways to widen their hiring pools. 

One way to do this? Try looking at candidates who, in the past, may have been eliminated in the early stages of the hiring process, due to reasons that aren’t exactly relevant anymore.

Evil HR Lady Suzanne Lucas explains which resume “red flags” shouldn’t immediately disqualify a candidate, since after an interview, you might discover they would be a good fit.

1. Laid off from last job

Lay-offs are not at all representative of an employee’s ability or work ethic. Over 300,000 workers experienced lay-offs during the 2008-2009 recession; odds are, many of them were good employees who were just in the wrong job at the wrong time.

Often, a lay-off is just an indicator of financial instability at a candidate’s previous company. To get to the reason behind the lay-off, ask a candidate if they could explain a little bit about their previous company’s situation during this time.

2. Big gaps in work history

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 1.4 million Americans who have been unemployed for 27 weeks or longer.

But just because candidates have been out of the workforce for a while, doesn’t mean they’d be a bad hire. There could be many reasons why it’s been a while since their last job — but you won’t know unless you ask them about it.

To get a better idea of what they could bring to the table, ask these candidates what their short-term and long-term career goals are.

3. No bachelor’s degree

In today’s job market, a bachelor’s degree seems like a requirement for practically every job. But ask yourself: Is that degree really necessary for this job? Or could years of work experience make up for the lack of college education?

When speaking to these candidates, find out more about relevant skills they’ve learned over the years. See if they have further education plans in the future, too.

4. Record of job-hopping

At first glance, switching jobs a lot seems like a deal-breaker. Why should you hire someone if they most likely won’t stick around? And maybe they do get bored easily, but there might be an explanation for all the job-hopping.

The candidate might’ve joined a start-up that went under in six months. Maybe their spouse got a job across the country so they moved, or maybe they had the worst manager in the world.

None of these reasons have anything to do with the candidate being disloyal or wishy-washy, but you won’t know unless you ask.



Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

IRS’ first FAQ on paid-leave credit answers some key questions

Employers finally have federal guidance regarding the paid-leave tax credit created under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), but that guidance is likely to fall short of what many firms were expecting.

In fact, in the initial FAQ on the tax-credit, the IRS even said it will eventually offer more comprehensive guidance for employers. But until that additional guidance comes, employers will have to make do with what the feds just rolled out.

12.5% to 25% credit

What employers already knew about the credit: It was established for employers that provide paid family and medical leave, as described under the FMLA, to employees for wages paid between Jan. 1, 2018, and Dec. 31, 2019 and will sunset unless Congress decides to extend it. Employees on leave must be paid at least 50% of their normal wages while on leave.

The tax credit ranges from 12.5-25% of the amount of wages paid to a worker during leave, depending on exactly how much of their normal wages are actually paid out. The credit only applies to those who earn below $72,000 and doesn’t apply if by paid leave is mandated by their state or local law.

While the FAQ essentially reiterated a lot of what was in the TCJA, it did clarify what constitutes “paid family and medical leave” under the credit:

  • Birth of an employee’s child and to care for the child.
  • Placement of a child with the employee for adoption or foster care.
  • To care for the employee’s spouse, child, or parent who has a serious health condition.
  • A serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of his or her position.
  • Any qualifying exigency due to an employee’s spouse, child, or parent being on covered active duty (or having been notified of an impending call or order to covered active duty) in the Armed Forces.
  • To care for a service member who is the employee’s spouse, child, parent, or next of kin.

In addition, if employers provide paid vacation, personal, medical or sick leave that isn’t specifically for one of those reasons, it will not be considered family and medical leave for the purposes of the tax credit.

The FAQ also clarified how employers must calculate the credit. For example, companies must reduce their deductions for wages paid by the amount of any tax credit for paid leave.

The attorneys over at Winston & Strawn LLP offered a specific example of how the calculation would apply to an employee earning $50,000 that included $5,000 of paid FMLA leave. In this example, the employer received a $1,250 credit for the leave it provided. Therefore, it could only deduct $48,750 of the employee’s wage expense ($50,000-$1,250).

What the feds didn’t include

Despite the clarifications, the IRS said has a lot more guidance coming on the finer points of the credit. Specifically, the agency said it will address (“eventually”), the following in future guidance:

  • When the written policy [on paid FMLA for purposes of tax-credit calculation] must be in place;
  • How paid “family and medical leave” relates to an employer’s other paid leave;
  • How to determine whether an employee has been employed for “one year or more”;
  • The impact of state and local leave requirements; and
  • Whether members of a controlled group of corporations and businesses under common control are treated as a single taxpayer in determining the credit.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

FLSA violation? Church members told it was ‘blasphemy’ not to volunteer at the ‘Lord’s Buffet’

At first glance, church members volunteering at their parish’s buffet restaurant seems like it’s on the up and up. But when it’s discovered that these volunteers were coerced and threatened with religious consequences, the DOL’s going to get involved. 

Worried about ‘failing God’

Grace Cathedral Church in Akron, OH owned and operated a restaurant called Cathedral Buffet. While the restaurant had a few employees, the church mostly relied on volunteers to keep it running.

But its hellish volunteer recruiting methods quite literally put the fear of God in Grace Cathedral churchgoers.

The church’s reverend referred to the restaurant as “The Lord’s Buffet,” and told people that every time they didn’t volunteer, they were “closing the door on God.”

When managers of the restaurant contacted volunteers asking them to work a shift, they told the churchgoers that the reverend would find out if they refused to work.

Many volunteers agreed to shifts, worried they’d be “failing God” if they didn’t.

DOL: ‘Violation of FLSA’

The DOL filed a lawsuit against Cathedral Buffet, stating that these practices were a clear violation of the FLSA.

The restaurant heavily relied on its volunteers, even admitting it used them to “save money.” It also had them do the tasks of regular employees, such as washing dishes, serving customers and manning the register. The DOL pointed out that the church had a “high level of control” over the volunteers as well.

The DOL said that not paying these volunteers violated the minimum wage provision of the FLSA, since they were doing the work of paid employees. A judge agreed, and ordered Cathedral Buffet to pay almost $400,000 in back wages and liquidated damages.

Not so fast …

But recently, the 6th Circuit reversed this decision, letting the restaurant off the hook.

The circuit court said that these volunteers shouldn’t have been paid as employees, because they had no “expectation of compensation.” Since the volunteers knew their work would be for free, there was no FLSA violation, the 6th Circuit said.

When the “spiritual coercion” issue was brought up, the circuit court said this isn’t prohibited by the FLSA. There are no guidelines regulating the circumstances under which someone volunteers for a job.

For the time being, it looks like Cathedral Buffet won’t be paying for its sins, but the managers still might want to head to confession.

Cite: Acosta v. Cathedral Buffet, Inc., U.S. Crt. of App. 6th Cir., No. 17-3427, 4/16/18.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Employee fakes cancer to get leave: How vigilant manager stopped the abuse

When an employee requests time off because of something as serious as a cancer diagnosis, 99% of the time the person will be telling the truth about their situation. But as a recent case shows, if a manager has even an inkling that something’s amiss, it pays to take a closer look.

In the case of former U.S. Postal Service (USPS) employee Caroline Boyle, a supervisor’s skepticism likely foiled an egregious — and illegal — abuse of leave.

Here’s what happened: Boyle let her supervisor know she needed to take some time off because she’d been diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma. The request came after the 25-year veteran was denied a promotion (we’ll get to that later). Over the 20 months that followed the request, Boyle took 112 days of sick leave and worked from home part-time to attend her frequent doctor’s visits.

Boyle’s manager even allowed her to work from home and approved paid administrative leave that didn’t count against her sick leave.

Incorrect spelling sparks questions

Boyle provide a number of doctor’s notes to support her time-off and other accommodation requests for her cancer and, more than a year after letting USPS know about her “condition,” a manager became suspicious about her claims.

That suspicion prompted a USPS investigator to take a closer look at the doctor’s notes that had been provided. During that process, the investigator discovered that Boyle had spelled one of her cancer doctor’s names incorrectly. This led the investigator to question all of the facilities in which Boyle claimed to receive treatment and, lo and behold, none of those facilities had any record of Boyle as a patient.

Losing her job at the USPS was the least of Boyle’s concerns. She was also indicted by a federal grand jury on felony counts of forged writings, wire fraud and possession of false papers to defraud the United States.

Based on a former subordinate’s situation

The real drama in this case actually took place in the courtroom, where Boyle admitted to not only faking her cancer diagnosis but also revealed her motive for doing so: She was upset because she didn’t get a promotion.

Stranger still, Boyle essentially based her entire fraudulent leave claim on a former subordinate of hers. During the sentencing, Lisa Roberts testified that Boyle’s made-up cancer diagnosis was a carbon copy of her real one.

What’s more, when Roberts requested time off for treatment, Boyle accused her of faking the cancer diagnosis to take a long vacation, prodded Roberts on the reason she didn’t lose her hair and demanded that Roberts turn off her confidential medical records.

Roberts said Boyle used those very same medical records to back up her own fake cancer diagnosis.

While the details of this strange, strange case sound like details plucked straight from a made-for-TV movie, the takeaway for employers is easily transferrable to more pedestrian workplace situations: If managers suspect something is amiss with an employee’s leave request, allow them to follow their instincts — provided they do so within the specific confines of the relevant applicable laws. After all, front-line managers are often your first-line of defense against leave abuse.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Employees name 4 biggest workplace distractions: Here’s how to help them

It’s not surprising that a recent survey found 69% of full-time employees get distracted at work.

The more interesting finding is that 70% of workers think their managers could help them focus better through training. 

Udemy conducted a survey of 1,000 full-time office workers in the U.S. to find what was causing the distractions, how employees cope with them and what employers can do to help workers regain their focus.

Biggest distractions

Fifty-four percent of employees believe they are underperforming due to workplace distractions. Here’s what topped the list:

  • Talkative co-workers (80%)
  • Office noise (70%)
  • Meetings (60%), and
  • Social media (56%).

The majority of workers who said social media was the biggest distraction admitted that its use wasn’t work-related, but they couldn’t get through the day without checking personal accounts. One-third of millennial employees are on their phones for up to two hours during the workday.

A lot of workers are aware these distractions affect their productivity and try to combat them on their own.

Forty-three percent of employees shut their cell phones off during work. Thirty percent listen to music to block out conversations and other noises. And when workers know they’re distracted and won’t be able to focus, 26% use that time to complete simpler tasks.

What employees need to focus

Distractions not only impact productivity, but also have a long-term impact on careers.

Twenty-two percent of workers think distractions can prevent them from reaching their full potential and advancing in their careers, while 34% said distractions simply make them like their job less.

Employees had some ideas of what would make them more inclined to focus at work:

  • Trying new things (54%)
  • Being encouraged to learn new skills (42%)
  • Knowing the path for professional advancement (35%), and
  • Participating in workplace trainings (22%).

The survey also found some more tangible things employers can do to cut down on distractions. Here are the top suggestions:

  • Allow flexible schedules/telecommuting (40%)
  • Have designated spaces for quiet work and teamwork (38%)
  • Provide time management training (37%)
  • Define office norms for noise levels, conversations, etc. (31%), and
  • Have regular “no meetings” days.



Post to Twitter Tweet This Post