SL Trib article on co-worker interactions

[bsjkki]

This is a great article about work place co-worker interactions and the updated advice being taught at BYU's business school and even updated travel guidelines for church employees. http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/08/13/no-no-for-a-man-to-have-a-business-lunch-with-a-woman-not-his-spouse-such-thinking-may-be-rooted-in-past-mormon-counsel/ From the article: 

"Thompson tells his male LDS students that “choosing to go to lunch with men but not women is discrimination. You are limiting the opportunities for female colleagues to have mentorship."

And travel guidelines for church employees. "While separate transportation may be requested by employees in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety, individual church departments and employees should not develop travel policies or practices that discriminate against employees based on gender,” church spokesman Eric Hawkins said in a statement. “This includes practices that … would limit the ability of employees to accomplish their job responsibilities, to attend business meetings or conferences, or to pursue development opportunities."

A lot of business deals and networking happen at lunch. Not having lunch or a closed door meeting with a member of the opposite sex is no longer feasible in today's business world. Lock your heart, keep your covenants and as the article states "watch out for predators." 

 

Edited August 15, 2017 by bsjkki

[smac97]

I read the article and found it generally useful.  I did pause, however, at the apparent double standard in it.

Bro. Thompson's counsel to men vis-à-vis having business lunches with women:

• Thompson tells his male LDS students that “choosing to go to lunch with men but not women is discrimination. You are limiting the opportunities for female colleagues to have mentorship.”
• “What do you [men] think I want from lunch?” women ask Thompson, scoffing at the idea of a meal as subterfuge for sex. “You may be giving yourselves a little too much credit.”

Bro. Thompson's counsel to women vis-à-vis having business lunches with men:

• He {Thompson} urges his female students to pursue every opportunity to network, but “watch out for predators.”

So if a man wants to take precautions against the risk of impropriety or even just the appearance thereof, he is "discriminat{ing}" against women and "giving {himself} a little too much credit."

But if when it comes to a woman taking precautions, well, that's all fine and dandy because, according to Bro. Thompson, some men are "predators."

There's just a whiff of sexism coming off these disparate pieces of advice (that is, sexism against men, whom women can consider as potentially predatory, while no corollary caution about women being predatory is given to men).  

A few articles might merit some attention:

• When Men Face Sexual Harassment
• I'm a Man Who Was Sexually Harassed by a Woman
• Yes, Men Can Be Sexually Harassed in the Workplace
• Sexual harassment at work is not only about men targeting women
• {Female on} Male sexual harassment is not a joke
• LensCrafters Settles Female-On-Male Sexual Harassment Case

When I was in college I worked at a call center.  I had a female co-worker who repeatedly gave me unsolicited shoulder/back rubs.  I was on the phones, so I was usually stuck in place when she did this.  Several times I muted the call I was on and specifically asked her to stop, but she wouldn't, telling me she just wanted to help me relax.  It got to the point where I was squirming in my seat to get away from her, but that only emboldened her into thinking I was playing some sort of "hard to get" game with her.  Finally, one day I had enough.  I shrugged to get her hands off my shoulders, and when that didn't work I turned halfway around in my seat and smacked her hand, while simultaneously muting the call and looking her square in the face and saying "Do not touch me ever again."  She finally got the message.

In looking back, I wonder why I did not ever report her, despite her behavior lasting for several weeks.  I think there is perhaps a stigma about it.  It's men that are sometimes "predators," not women.

Or so I thought. 

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited August 15, 2017 by smac97

[Glenn101]

30 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

This is a great article about work place co-worker interactions and the updated advice being taught at BYU's business school and even updated travel guidelines for church employees. http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/08/13/no-no-for-a-man-to-have-a-business-lunch-with-a-woman-not-his-spouse-such-thinking-may-be-rooted-in-past-mormon-counsel/ From the article: 

"Thompson tells his male LDS students that “choosing to go to lunch with men but not women is discrimination. You are limiting the opportunities for female colleagues to have mentorship."

And travel guidelines for church employees. "While separate transportation may be requested by employees in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety, individual church departments and employees should not develop travel policies or practices that discriminate against employees based on gender,” church spokesman Eric Hawkins said in a statement. “This includes practices that … would limit the ability of employees to accomplish their job responsibilities, to attend business meetings or conferences, or to pursue development opportunities."

A lot of business deals and networking happen at lunch. Not having lunch or a closed door meeting with a member of the opposite sex is no longer feasible in today's business world. Lock your heart, keep your covenants and as the article states "watch out for predators." 

 

That mostly applies to white collar lunches. During my years in the industrial work force lunch was a hastily devoured affair with very little time for social interactions.

But the article is perfectly correct in that a lot of LDS men, if I am any example, are uncomfortable being in private situations with women that they are not married to. I confess that I am uneasy riding alone in a car with a woman that is not my wife. It is something that is pretty much ingrained. I don't know if I can help it or not.

I do know that years ago and in another cultural age, just being seen riding around alone with a woman separated from her husband was sufficient to start tongues wagging and to have acquaintances make sly comments and or smirk knowingly. It really is not any better today, just more accepted.

As to the inclusion of females in a lunch group, I see no problem. In the scenario that was presented in the article, a lot would depend upon the individual circumstances. I would not do it without the consent of my wife, or at least letting her know via a text message or such if I could not converse with her. That is just the way that I am.

Glenn

[bsjkki]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I read the article and found it generally useful.  I did pause, however, at the apparent double standard in it.

Bro. Thompson's counsel to men vis-à-vis having business lunches with women:

• Thompson tells his male LDS students that “choosing to go to lunch with men but not women is discrimination. You are limiting the opportunities for female colleagues to have mentorship.”
• “What do you [men] think I want from lunch?” women ask Thompson, scoffing at the idea of a meal as subterfuge for sex. “You may be giving yourselves a little too much credit.”

Bro. Thompson's counsel to women vis-à-vis having business lunches with men:

• He {Thompson} urges his female students to pursue every opportunity to network, but “watch out for predators.”

So if a man wants to take precautions against the risk of impropriety or even just the appearance thereof, he is "discriminat{ing}" against women and "giving {himself} a little too much credit."

But if when it comes to a woman taking precautions, well, that's all fine and dandy because, according to Bro. Thompson, some men are "predators."

Sounds like quite a double standard, does it not?  So it's a bit ironic for him to portray his advice as egalitarian and gender neutral (as compared to the counsel received from General Authorities of years past), when in reality he ends up doing the same thing the GAs did: telling young professionals to use common sense to avoid potentially compromising situations.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I picked up on that...predators exist in both genders and extra precautions should be taken. But, sad day if you have to work in those conditions. 

I see both sides of this issue but I have closed door one on one meetings with men all the time...at church.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, bsjkki said:

This is a great article about work place co-worker interactions and the updated advice being taught at BYU's business school and even updated travel guidelines for church employees. http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/08/13/no-no-for-a-man-to-have-a-business-lunch-with-a-woman-not-his-spouse-such-thinking-may-be-rooted-in-past-mormon-counsel/ From the article: 

"Thompson tells his male LDS students that “choosing to go to lunch with men but not women is discrimination. You are limiting the opportunities for female colleagues to have mentorship."

And travel guidelines for church employees. "While separate transportation may be requested by employees in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety, individual church departments and employees should not develop travel policies or practices that discriminate against employees based on gender,” church spokesman Eric Hawkins said in a statement. “This includes practices that … would limit the ability of employees to accomplish their job responsibilities, to attend business meetings or conferences, or to pursue development opportunities."

A lot of business deals and networking happen at lunch. Not having lunch or a closed door meeting with a member of the opposite sex is no longer feasible in today's business world. Lock your heart, keep your covenants and as the article states "watch out for predators." 

 

Reminds me of the testimony meeting in my ward in Rockford, IL.

A sister stood and told the members that she didn't want to hear any gossip from those who had seen her at lunch in a restaurant with a man who was not her husband. 

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

That mostly applies to white collar lunches. During my years in the industrial work force lunch was a hastily devoured affair with very little time for social interactions.

But the article is perfectly correct in that a lot of LDS men, if I am any example, are uncomfortable being in private situations with women that they are not married to. I confess that I am uneasy riding alone in a car with a woman that is not my wife. It is something that is pretty much ingrained. I don't know if I can help it or not.

I do know that years ago and in another cultural age, just being seen riding around alone with a woman separated from her husband was sufficient to start tongues wagging and to have acquaintances make sly comments and or smirk knowingly. It really is not any better today, just more accepted.

As to the inclusion of females in a lunch group, I see no problem. In the scenario that was presented in the article, a lot would depend upon the individual circumstances. I would not do it without the consent of my wife, or at least letting her know via a text message or such if I could not converse with her. That is just the way that I am.

Glenn

Me too. Being a fogey of the old school, I would avoid such solo situations at all costs. On the other hand, I once happened into an all-female lunch in a faculty room, and I had to leave because of the foul language and off-color jokes being spoken.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

I read the article and found it generally useful.  I did pause, however, at the apparent double standard in it.

Bro. Thompson's counsel to men vis-à-vis having business lunches with women:

• Thompson tells his male LDS students that “choosing to go to lunch with men but not women is discrimination. You are limiting the opportunities for female colleagues to have mentorship.”
• “What do you [men] think I want from lunch?” women ask Thompson, scoffing at the idea of a meal as subterfuge for sex. “You may be giving yourselves a little too much credit.”

Bro. Thompson's counsel to women vis-à-vis having business lunches with men:

• He {Thompson} urges his female students to pursue every opportunity to network, but “watch out for predators.”

So if a man wants to take precautions against the risk of impropriety or even just the appearance thereof, he is "discriminat{ing}" against women and "giving {himself} a little too much credit."

But if when it comes to a woman taking precautions, well, that's all fine and dandy because, according to Bro. Thompson, some men are "predators."

There's just a whiff of sexism coming off these disparate pieces of advice (that is, sexism against men, whom women can consider as potentially predatory, while no corollary caution about women being predatory is given to men).  

A few articles might merit some attention:

• When Men Face Sexual Harassment
• I'm a Man Who Was Sexually Harassed by a Woman
• Yes, Men Can Be Sexually Harassed in the Workplace
• Sexual harassment at work is not only about men targeting women
• {Female on} Male sexual harassment is not a joke
• LensCrafters Settles Female-On-Male Sexual Harassment Case

When I was in college I worked at a call center.  I had a female co-worker who repeatedly gave me unsolicited shoulder/back rubs.  I was on the phones, so I was usually stuck in place when she did this.  Several times I muted the call I was on and specifically asked her to stop, but she wouldn't, telling me she just wanted to help me relax.  It got to the point where I was squirming in my seat to get away from her, but that only emboldened her into thinking I was playing some sort of "hard to get" game with her.  Finally, one day I had enough.  I shrugged to get her hands off my shoulders, and when that didn't work I turned halfway around in my seat and smacked her hand, while simultaneously muting the call and looking her square in the face and saying "Do not touch me ever again."  She finally got the message.

In looking back, I wonder why I did not ever report her, despite her behavior lasting for several weeks.  I think there is perhaps a stigma about it.  It's men that are sometimes "predators," not women.

Or so I thought. 

Thanks,

-Smac

 

When I read the article, I wondered about a hypothetical scenario involving a female boss. If she regularly had one-on-one business-related lunches with her female subordinates but not with her male ones, could the males legitimately allege discrimination? If not, why not? Double standard?

[bsjkki]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When I read the article, I wondered about a hypothetical scenario involving a female boss. If she regularly had one-on-one business-related lunches with her female subordinates but not with her male ones, could the males legitimately allege discrimination? If not, why not? Double standard?

Yes...she should also meet with her male subordinates. I don't think refusing a meeting or business lunch with her because she is a woman would foster career longevity. 

[HappyJackWagon]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When I read the article, I wondered about a hypothetical scenario involving a female boss. If she regularly had one-on-one business-related lunches with her female subordinates but not with her male ones, could the males legitimately allege discrimination? If not, why not? Double standard?

Absolutely that would be discrimination. So I believe it works both ways. Men can't only have lunch with other men and women can't have lunch only with other women.

I had been taught in the church not to drive alone with women, even if going to the same meeting an hour away. We drove two cars to avoid the appearance of evil. It became ingrained and it has been hard to change that mindset in the business environment. I remember working late one evening and realizing I was alone in the building with a woman. I became really uncomfortable because I carried the church counsel over to work where it didn't apply as well.

That said, as SMAC describes, it can be a challenging environment to navigate. What comes across as a double standard sometimes really reflects a harsh reality of a situation. Yes, men are discriminating if they don't include women in their lunches or work with female subordinates to mentor and coach. But at the same time, there is risk that the male boss will try to take advantage of the alone time but there is also risk to the male boss who may have his intentions misunderstood. It's challenging for sure and a line that must be walked carefully.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Absolutely that would be discrimination. So I believe it works both ways. Men can't only have lunch with other men and women can't have lunch only with other women.

I had been taught in the church not to drive alone with women, even if going to the same meeting an hour away. We drove two cars to avoid the appearance of evil. It became ingrained and it has been hard to change that mindset in the business environment. I remember working late one evening and realizing I was alone in the building with a woman. I became really uncomfortable because I carried the church counsel over to work where it didn't apply as well.

That said, as SMAC describes, it can be a challenging environment to navigate. What comes across as a double standard sometimes really reflects a harsh reality of a situation. Yes, men are discriminating if they don't include women in their lunches or work with female subordinates to mentor and coach. But at the same time, there is risk that the male boss will try to take advantage of the alone time but there is also risk to the male boss who may have his intentions misunderstood. It's challenging for sure and a line that must be walked carefully.

What you marginalize as a "mindset" is still wise counsel, and there needs to be allowance in the workplace for the sincerely held beliefs and standards of one who desires not to be alone with someone of the opposite sex who is not his or her spouse. Otherwise there arises yet another form of unfair discrimination. 

[ALarson]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Me too. Being a fogey of the old school, I would avoid such solo situations at all costs. On the other hand, I once happened into an all-female lunch in a faculty room, and I had to leave because of the foul language and off-color jokes being spoken.

That of course takes place with groups of men and mixed groups as well.  I wouldn't just single out "all-female" lunches.  

I have to meet one on one with my female employees or reps from other companies I work with often and have had no problems (knock on wood), but I do use good judgement.  I always make sure that there are others in nearby offices and if it's a lunch, I make sure it's in a very public place (that's mainly with the reps coming in from out of town as I've never invited just one woman to go out to lunch or dinner with me from my office....and I always try to get them to come to my office if they can).  

 

Edited August 15, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That of course takes place with groups of men and mixed groups as well.  I wouldn't just single out "all-female" lunches.  

I have to meet one on one with my female employees or reps from other companies I work with often and have had no problems (knock on wood), but I do use good judgement.  I always make sure that there are others in nearby offices and if it's a lunch, I make sure it's in a very public place (that's mainly with the reps coming in from out of town as I've never invited just one woman to go out to lunch or dinner with me from my office....and I always try to get them to come to my office if they can).  

 

I don't believe Bernard was singling anybody out. He was simply reporting his observation. What makes it remarkable to me is that men are so often the ones accused (and rightly so) of harassment for their vulgar behavior in the workplace. 

What's good for the goose is good for the gander (or, in this instance, what's good for the gander is good for the goose). 

[Amulek]

I think you should just use common sense. 

Failing that, pack a lunch. 

[HappyJackWagon]

50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What you marginalize as a "mindset" is still wise counsel, and there needs to be allowance in the workplace for the sincerely held beliefs and standards of one who desires not to be alone with someone of the opposite sex who is not his or her spouse. Otherwise there arises yet another form of unfair discrimination. 

Good grief.

You are claiming discrimination if you're not allowed to engage in discriminatory behavior towards others. You can discriminate. Go for it. But don't whine about the consequences of your discrimination.

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Good grief.

You are claiming discrimination if you're not allowed to engage in discriminatory behavior towards others. You can discriminate. Go for it. But don't whine about the consequences of your discrimination.

You and I have a markedly different understanding about what constitutes discrimination. 

Good grief yourself. 

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't believe Bernard was singling anybody out.

That's exactly what he did.  However, I imagine he knows this does not only take place at "all female" gatherings.

And, you'd be all over a comment that only mentioned an "all Mormon" group in a derogatory manner and stating that it's not right to be "singling anybody out".

Edited August 15, 2017 by ALarson

[rongo]

I'm chuckling at this, because I never eat lunch. Am I discriminating by not eating lunch with my all-female colleagues in the foreign language department? Maybe it is cruel to withhold my wit and wisdom from my colleagues . . .  

We also have an all-female administration, and it is crystal-clear that any and all future advancement into admin will only be from females (they are blatantly favored --- it's obvious). This isn't a problem for me, because I am happy in my little fiefdom (German). I'm living the dream, and riding this wave to retirement . . . 

I think the whole notion of "working lunches," "power lunches," "networking through lunch," etc. to be gag-worthy. 

ETA: I joked with an evangelical colleague once that Isaiah saw our school in vision: 

"As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them."  

Edited August 15, 2017 by rongo
ETA

[Amulek]

49 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You are claiming discrimination if you're not allowed to engage in discriminatory behavior towards others. You can discriminate. Go for it. But don't whine about the consequences of your discrimination.

I think there is a difference between discrimination and accommodation. 

For example, I used to work with a young woman who was a devout Muslim. She did not believe it was appropriate to have physical contact with members of the opposite sex (save for her husband and her male relatives). For the job she was performing, there was no need for her to have physical contact with anybody, so it wasn't a burden for us to accommodate her sincerely held religious beliefs.

So, even though I would routinely shake hands with my other employees, I wouldn't shake hands with her - not because I was singling her out for discrimination, but because I respected her. She was a great employee, and I certainly never felt like she was discriminating against me by not shaking hands. 

 

Edited August 15, 2017 by Amulek

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

1. That of course takes place with groups of men and mixed groups as well.  I wouldn't just single out "all-female" lunches.  

2. I have to meet one on one with my female employees or reps from other companies I work with often and have had no problems (knock on wood), but I do use good judgement.  I always make sure that there are others in nearby offices and if it's a lunch, I make sure it's in a very public place (that's mainly with the reps coming in from out of town as I've never invited just one woman to go out to lunch or dinner with me from my office....and I always try to get them to come to my office if they can).  

3. That's exactly what he did.  However, I imagine he knows this does not only take place at "all female" gatherings.

And, you'd be all over a comment that only mentioned an "all Mormon" group in a derogatory manner and stating that it's not right to be "singling anybody out".

1. Just telling an interesting story about a power lunch at work. Kind of burst a small bubble of mine. Of course men do it, too. Want one about mento smooth things out? 

2. Good judgment indeed! 

3. Molehill, meet mountain. Nothing derogatory was intended. The memory was triggered by this comment....

Quote

But the article is perfectly correct in that a lot of LDS men, if I am any example, are uncomfortable being in private situations with women that they are not married to.

 

Edited August 15, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[bsjkki]

57 minutes ago, rongo said:

think the whole notion of "working lunches," "power lunches," "networking through lunch," etc. to be gag-worthy. 

I think this depends on your industry and what your job is. My husband has working lunches scheduled daily with different companies, clients, architects and designers. He doesn't ask if their rep is male or female and he meets with who he needs to meet with. They meet at public restaurants.  

My daughter is in this male dominated business and is often alone with male co-workers on job sites. She has a performance review today with her Vice President, a Mormon bishop. Should he not meet alone with her? Do you feel they should be chaperoned?

*Just wanted to add in college, she was often the only female in class and she spent a lot of time in one on one study sessions (often tutoring) Her best friend in her program was a married man. For her scholarship she met alone for lunch with a married man for her interview. 

My senior is in AP Physics 2. There are only 2 girls out of 19 students. She will face these numbers at college and in her career. Mentorship is very important in certain fields.

 

Edited August 15, 2017 by bsjkki

[bluebell]

Because I have a close friend who's active, temple attending, daily scripture reading/prayer saying, in the bishopric at the time, husband had a sexual affair (and then another one with a separate colleague) with a work colleague that started over business lunches, I don't think it's worth it.

I don't understand why one-on-one business lunches is a requirement for mentoring.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Because I have a close friend who's active, temple attending, daily scripture reading/prayer saying, in the bishopric at the time, husband had a sexual affair (and then another one with a separate colleague) with a work colleague that started over business lunches, I don't think it's worth it.

I don't understand why one-on-one business lunches is a requirement for mentoring.

Surely they didn't get busy during their business lunch at a restaurant, right? So it seems like if someone is going to stray, they are going to find a way. Unless one goes the route of the muslim woman who will never be alone or even shake hands with a man who is not familial, then I'm not sure what the answer is, other than using good judgment and caution.

 

[Duncan]

Something i've learned is before you accuse someone of something you had better be blooming sure what you think is going on is actually going on because you could be wrong. Par example, just after my sister got married I went Christmas shopping with her at a local mall and we went to the stores, had dinner and saw a movie, NBD. Well, apparently someone who knew my sister's husband but didn't know me called my sister  few days later and asked who the "other man" was and my sister was like um, what other man? and her dopey friend said she saw us together and thought she was cheating on her husband.....which wasn't the case

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I'm chuckling at this, because I never eat lunch. Am I discriminating by not eating lunch with my all-female colleagues in the foreign language department? Maybe it is cruel to withhold my wit and wisdom from my colleagues . . .  

We also have an all-female administration, and it is crystal-clear that any and all future advancement into admin will only be from females (they are blatantly favored --- it's obvious). This isn't a problem for me, because I am happy in my little fiefdom (German). I'm living the dream, and riding this wave to retirement . . . 

I think the whole notion of "working lunches," "power lunches," "networking through lunch," etc. to be gag-worthy. 

ETA: I joked with an evangelical colleague once that Isaiah saw our school in vision: 

"As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them."  

Newsflash! The dynamics in academia tend to be quite different from business.

[california boy]

This is one thing I find about the Mormon culture to be just a bit strange.  The whole not driving with someone of the opposite sex in the car with you.  Does the church still do the "if the wife is home alone, the missionaries can't come into the house?" Tell me that isn't strange.  Some grown woman is going to get turned on by 19 year old boys who all have to have no regard for personal morals?  If even one of them doesn't buy into the "let's have sex together before your husband or the kids come home scenario."  I am sure it has happened.  But where do you stop?  Should the wife be allowed to go grocery shopping without the husband there?  What if she picks up more than vegetables while she is there?  What if?  What if?  What if?  It is insulting to women and men to think that people with good morals can not control themselves.  And the whole gossip thing carries with it just as much shame on those that engage in it.