Diversity

Please join us on February 29 for our 20th annual Cocktails and Conversations program, presented by the Women’s Network of Miles & Stockbridge and featuring Brooke Lierman — the 34th Comptroller of the state of Maryland and the first woman to be independently elected to one of our state’s constitutional offices. We’ll kick off Women’s History Month a day early — on Leap Day 2024 — with a fabulous group of women celebrating women. And, we’ll take this “extra” day of the year to focus on making new connections, sharing ideas and focusing on the WHM theme of “Women Who Advocate for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion.” We look forward to networking with everyone while enjoying hors d’oeuvres and cocktails overlooking Baltimore’s Inner Harbor, capped off with a dynamic talk from our speaker. Register online at  

There is no “I” in team. It is a phrase often cited and not attributed to anyone. So, I am going out on a limb to say there is an “I” in team and it is the most critical aspect of a high-performing team. No, this is not a reference to Michael Jordan’s quote of “there is an “i” in win.” Common knowledge is that a team of self-focused “I” performers does not make for a high-performing team, because they never become a team. What do I mean that “I” is the most critical aspect?

By: Robert G. Brody   When considering religious accommodation, employers have enjoyed great latitude with accepting or rejecting requested religious accommodations. This was thanks in large part to the Supreme Court’s 1977 ruling in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, which held an employer need only show it would bear more than a “de minimis” cost/effort to demonstrate that a religious accommodation is an undue hardship under the law. However, in the recent Supreme Court term, the US Supreme Court upended the “de minimis” cost standard. In Groff v. Dejoy, the justices unanimously ruled that Title VII requires the employer to show they would bear a “substantial increase” in cost/effort to demonstrate that religious accommodation is an undue hardship.   The Case Gross v. Dejoy involved a dispute between the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) and former employee Gerald Groff. Groff, an evangelical Christian who observes Sunday as a day of rest, requested an accommodation to not work on Sundays. In response, the USPS granted the accommodation to the extent they could redistribute Groff’s Sunday shifts. However, on the days where the USPS could not redistribute Groff’s shifts, Groff was required to work. Groff refused to work on any Sunday and was subject to progressive discipline for failing to work until he ultimately resigned rather than be fired. Groff sued under Title VII but lost his case in the district court and the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Both courts applied Trans World Airlines to the case and found that USPS established it would bear “more than a de minimis” cost in granting Groff’s accommodation request.   The Plot Twist In a shockingly-not-shocking ruling, the Supreme Court upended the Trans World Airlines ruling, opting to substitute a “substantial” cost/effort standard for the “de minimis” cost/effort standard. The “substantial” cost/effort standard is a fact-specific inquiry. The Court provided some factors to analyze, including the accommodation being requested and the accommodation’s real-world impact on the Employer considering the nature, size, and operating costs of an employer. In contrast to the previous standard, some additional costs/efforts may be insufficient to rise to the level of an undue burden. Instead, the burden must rise to an “excessive” or “unjustifiable” level.   The Impact In light of this ruling, employers must revisit their religious accommodation policies. Employers should update their handbooks, communicate the heightened standard to Human Resources, and develop a strategy for analyzing the “cost” or “effort” imposed by future religious accommodation requests. Brody and Associates regularly advises management on complying with the latest local, state and federal employment laws.  If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560    

By Robert J. Brody and Luis A. Torres   California passed two laws that require diversity for certain corporate boards.  The first required diversity based on gender and the second for “underrepresented communities.”  The  effective date and required amount of representation varies based on board size.  In two separate actions, each law was found unconstitutional. The underlying challenge is these laws violate the equal protection laws since each law is declaring different treatment of equal people based on sex or other protected characteristics such as national origin or ancestry.  For these laws to pass muster, they must be found to correct unlawful conduct, not merely a societal history of unfair under representation. This issue is far from over.  California’s Secretary of State has already announced these cases will be appealed.  Regardless of what happens in California, other states are likely to follow suit.  Of course, if the laws are ultimately upheld, the number of states to follow suit will likely increase dramatically.  Time will tell. Brody and Associates regularly advises management on complying with the latest local, state and federal employment laws.  If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560

Embracing DEI as Part of Your Recruitment/Retention Strategy More employers have come to embrace diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives as a way to improve workplace culture and demonstrate they value their employees as people, not just workers. Harvard Business Review found that 65% of U.S. executives say DEI is a high strategic priority, and organizations on the leading edge report multiple organizational benefits related to their DEI work, including increased employee engagement, innovation and success in recruiting and retaining employees.3 Additional studies suggest that taking the right actions to improve DEI can also lead to better financial outcomes for the organization.

Our new Informed Inclusion book club meets on the last Monday of each month. If you are interested in learning more, please look for our next meeting on the XPX National Calendar and/or add yourself to the Informed Inclusion mailing list in your profile (log in above and click to “Edit My Info”) We’re still…

Popular

What's Trending

As an advisor, your role is to help clients prepare to exit their business, yet many people resist thinking about the future because it involves so many unknowns, decisions, and choices.  And emotions typically complicate matters further, sometimes derailing the process altogether.  Here are some questions that can help you establish rapport with your clients, learn more about their concerns, and move the conversation forward. How are you feeling about your work/profession/business these days? Which aspects of work are you still enjoying, and which are you ready to leave behind? Do you envision retiring from work at some point, or are you contemplating an encore career? What part of planning for your future feels most challenging? How do you imagine your life in retirement will be different from how it is now? What process are you using to figure out what you’ll do next after you retire? What would you like to see happen with your business long term? What options have you considered for the transfer of your business? What steps have you taken to make your business more attractive to a potential buyer? What are your concerns about transitioning your firm to new ownership? What would be your ideal scenario for transitioning out of your company? What topic(s) have we touched on today that we should put on our agenda to revisit? So, what happens after you pose a few of these questions and your clients open up about emotional matters?  Remember, the most helpful thing you can do is to listen attentively.  You’ve created a valuable opportunity for them to talk about things they may not share with other advisors.   Here are some tips for managing the conversation when clients raise emotionally loaded topics: Don’t try to “fix things” by immediately offering suggestions. Doing so sends the message that you’re uncomfortable hearing their concern.  You can offer suggestions but do so later. Don’t say anything that conveys the message that their feeling or concern is unwarranted. “There’s really no need to feel that way” or “I’m sure it will be just fine” may sound reassuring to you but could be experienced as dismissive by your client. Don’t immediately offer a logical counterpoint to your client’s emotion. Remember, feelings don’t have to make sense; they’re “as is”.  Put another way, if feelings made sense, they would be thoughts. People report concerns and characterize their feelings differently from one another, so it’s in your best interest to seek amplification and clarification by inquiring as follows . . . “I want to make sure that I understand exactly what you mean by ___.  Can you tell me more?” “People sometimes mean slightly different things when they talk about ___.  What does ___ mean for you?” “Before I suggest anything, I’d like to learn more about it from your perspective.” It’s possible that during early conversations your client may hint at mixed feelings about exiting their business.  That’s perfectly normal, but you need to bring it out into the open.  You want to foster an atmosphere such that your client keeps you apprised about where they’re at.  If they keep their ambivalence to themselves, it has greater potential to blindside you and complicate the sale.  You can say: “In my experience, it’s normal to have some mixed emotions about selling.  Those thoughts may not always be top of mind, but when they do pop up let’s be sure to talk about them.  Believe it or not, they can help inform our process and alert us to aspects of the sale that are important to you.” You may also find that your client is overly risk averse.  If so, consider saying the following: “Our work together won’t be comprehensive if we only plan for what could go wrong.  That’s just half the equation.  It’s fine to be conservative and err on the side of caution, but to be truly realistic we should also consider a range of possibilities both good and bad.”   Author’s Note:  The concepts in this article are derived from Robert Leahy’s book, Overcoming Resistance in Cognitive Therapy.  New York:  Guilford

For five decades, the southern United States has been an attractive location for automakers to open plants thanks to generous tax breaks and cheaper, non-union labor. However, after decades of failing to unionize automakers in the South, the United Auto Workers dealt a serious blow to that model by winning a landslide union victory at Volkswagen. In an effort to fight back, three southern states have gotten creative: they passed laws barring companies from receiving state grants, loans and tax incentives if the company voluntarily recognizes a union or voluntarily provides unions with employee information. The laws also allow the government to claw back incentive payments after they were made. While these laws are very similar, each law has unique nuances. If you are in an impacted state, you should seek local counsel. In 2023, Tennessee was the first state to pass such a law. This year, Georgia and Alabama followed suit. So why this push? In 2023, the American Legislative Exchange Council (“ALEC”), a nonprofit organization of conservative state legislators and private sector representatives who draft and share model legislation for distribution among state governments, adopted Tennessee’s law as model legislation. In fact, the primary sponsor of Tennessee’s bill was recognized as an ALEC Policy Champion in March 2023. ALEC’s push comes as voluntary recognition of unions gains popularity as an alternative to fighting unions. We recently saw this with the high-profile Ben & Jerry’s voluntary recognition. Will this Southern strategy work to push back against growing union successes? Time will tell. Brody and Associates regularly advises its clients on all labor management issues, including union-related matters, and provides union-free training.  If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560.  

I once had the thrill of interviewing Jerry West on management. He was “The Logo” for the NBA, although back then they didn’t advertise him as such. Only the Laker followers knew for sure. In 1989 the “Showtime” Lakers were coming off back-to-back championships.  Pat Riley was a year away from his first of three Coach of the Year awards. 

Can you Offer Too Many SKUs to Your Customers? The short answer is YES! A SKU, or Stock Keeping Unit, defines each different product version that you sell and keep inventory of.  There may be different SKUs of the same overall item based on size, color, capacity (think computer or cellphone memory), features, and many other parameters.  For build to forecast businesses, that number of variations can quickly explode and become difficult to manage. Your customers are busy and want ordering simplified. Of course, they may need (or want) more than one variation of a product. That is reasonable and a common aspect of business – one size does not fit all! But there is a point where too offering too many SKUs is not value added either for your customer or your business.  In his April 30, 2013 article “Successful Retailers Learn That Fewer Choices Trigger More Sales” in Forbes, Carmine Gallo discusses his experience and a study about “choice overload” by other authors. He writes about a retailer that “has discovered that giving a customer more than three choices at one time actually overwhelms customers and makes them frustrated…when the customer is faced with too many choices at once, it leaves the customer confused and less likely to buy from any of the choices!” Choice overload is well-documented in consumer studies but can apply in B2B as well. While customer satisfaction is important, another key concern is the often-hidden costs associated with a business offering and managing a large number of SKUs for a given product type. These costs include holding inventory, S&OP (Sales and Operations Planning) team time, small production runs, and scrapping inventory. Holding inventory takes up space, which may come with a cost or utilize racks that could be used for other products. Scheduled inventory counts take up employee time and may result in blackout periods when the warehouse is not shipping product.  The more SKUs there are, including extra SKUS, the greater the potential impact. The Sales team’s forecasting and the Operations team’s purchasing reviews that are part of the S&OP process can occupy more of their valuable time if they need to consider these times. If small orders or forecasts require a new production run, this could be costly and create excess inventory. Whether from this new production or past builds, eventually it will make sense to write off and scrap old inventory, another cost impact to the company. How do you know which SKUs to focus on if you wish to look at reducing your total number of SKUs? Start by examining SKUs that have: Low historic sales over a period of time Small variations between SKUs that customers do not value Older technology or model when newer option SKUs are available This requires a true partnership between Sales and Operations. It starts with educating both teams on the costs involved – neither group may be aware of the money and time impact to the company. Periodic (such as quarterly) reviews of SKUs that meet the above descriptions should become a fixed part of the calendar. A review of the data and other available for sale options should result in the identification of SKUs which may not be needed. At that point, it is helpful to have a customer friendly EOL (End of Life) Notice process by which you inform customers of last time buy requirements for this SKU and alternates available. It is usually best to provide some time for the last time buy in the interest of customer satisfaction, although that may not always be necessary. At a company that designed and sold electronics, a robust SKU rationalization process was implemented to help address these issues. A representative from the Operations team analyzed SKUs that met a version of the above criteria and suggested candidates for the EOL process. Next, a member of the Sales team reviewed them and, where appropriate, issued product change or EOL notices to customers, providing them time for last time buy orders when needed. These steps helped reduce the work involved in maintaining these SKUs while not leading to any customer complaints. A final note – sometimes it makes sense to continue offering low selling SKUs – to support customers buying other items (hopefully in larger quantities). It may be worthwhile to encourage them to keep coming back to you for all of their product needs and this may be a way to accomplish that. But it helps to understand that this is truly the case and not assume that this customer would not be equally happy with another, more popular, SKU.   Steven Lustig is founder and CEO of Lustig Global Consulting and an experienced Supply Chain Executive.  He is a recognized thought leader in supply chain and risk mitigation, and serves on the Boards of Directors for Loh Medical and Atlanta Technology Angels.

When it comes to careers, business owners are a minority of the population. In conversations this week, I mentioned the statistics several times, and each owner I was discussing it with was surprised that they had so few peers. According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), there are over 33,000,000 businesses in the US. Let’s discount those with zero employees. Many are shell companies or real estate holding entities. Also, those with fewer than 5 employees, true “Mom and Pop” businesses, are hard to distinguish from a job. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Association, lists businesses with 5 to 99 employees at about 3,300,000, and 123,000 have 100 to 500 employees (the SBA’s largest “small business” classification.) Overall, that means about 1% of the country are private employers. Owners are a small minority, a very small minority, of the population. Even if we only count working adults (161,000,000) business owners represent only a little more than 2% of that population. So What? Where am I going with this, and how does it relate to our recent discussions of purpose in business exit planning? It’s an important issue to consider when discussing an owner’s identity after transition. Whether or not individual owners know the statistics of their “rare species” status in society, they instinctively understand that they are different. They are identified with their owner status in every aspect of their business and personal life. At a social event, when asked “What do you do?” they will often respond “I own a business.” It’s an immediate differentiator from describing a job. “I am a carpenter.” or “I work in systems engineering,” describes a function. “I am a business owner” describes a life role. When asked for further information, the owner frequently replies in the Imperial first person plural. “We build multi-family housing,” is never mistaken for a personal role in the company. No one takes that answer to mean that the speaker swings a hammer all day. Owners are a Minority We process much of our information subconsciously. If a man enters a business gathering, for example, and the others in the room are 75% female, he will know instinctively, without consciously counting, that this business meeting or organization is different from others he attends. Similarly, business owners accept their minority status without thinking about it. They expect that the vast majority of the people they meet socially, who attend their church, or who have kids that play sports with theirs, work for someone else. There are places where owners congregate, but otherwise, they don’t expect to meet many other owners in the normal course of daily activity. This can be an issue after they exit the business. You see, telling people “I’m retired” has no distinction. Roughly 98% of the other people who say that never built an organization. They didn’t take the same risks. Others didn’t deal with the same broad variety of issues and challenges. Most didn’t have to personally live with the impact of every daily decision they made, or watch others suffer the consequences of their bad calls. That is why so many former owners suffer from a lack of identity after they leave. Subconsciously, they expect to stand out from the other 98%. “I’m retired” carries no such distinction.       This article was originally published by John F. Dini, CBEC, CExP, CEPA on

Previous
Next

Explore the Knowledge Exchange

Search