Now THAT’s Honest Feedback

There’s a saying that people want the truth until they get it.

Consider the leadership team at the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, who might regret asking interchange manager Michael Stuban to fill out an exit survey on his last day before heading into retirement.

Stuban, who spent 35 years with the organization, offered his two cents and then some.

In a recent interview with The Philadelphia Daily News, Stuban described the “brutal” frankness with which he approached the online questionnaire.

“When they asked for an honest exit interview, I gave them one,” Stuban told the paper, with a bit of a laugh. “I sent it minutes before I officially retired.”

For what it’s worth, the 58-year-old Stuban wrote that he didn’t really want to retire just yet, and that he actually liked his job.

He may have enjoyed his work, but it seems he wasn’t so crazy about the people he worked for.

The “out of touch” executive-level managers at the helm of the “rudderless” agency, for instance, are “only looking out for themselves,” according to Stuban. He characterized the past five years at the commission as “terrible,” with “no morale” among employees.

These same co-workers were asked to take part in classes “where we were told we are not political,” wrote Stuban, who opined that the commission frequently hires incompetent employees “based on political connections,” according to the Daily News.

Stuban didn’t mince words when it came to the idea that corporate politics were not at work within the organization.

“That’s bulls—,” he wrote. “Jobs/promotions are filled by the politicians … it’s who you know, not what you know. Positions [are] created for people who are not qualified.”

And, Stuban apparently felt so strongly about the thoughts he was sharing that he had to disseminate them throughout the organization. Stuban emailed his completed exit survey not just to the HR department from which it came, but to more than 2,000 colleagues as well, according to the Daily News.

At least one of them found some levity in Stuban’s sentiments.

“Want to get away? Southwest is offering great fares … ” replied the employee, in a reference to the airline’s well-known commercial tagline.

Turnpike Commission Chairman Sean Logan didn’t find Stuban’s candor quite so funny.

Logan, a former Pennsylvania State Senator, was equally blunt in his reply, which went out to those same 2,000-plus turnpike employees, the Daily News notes.

“Mr. Stuban … I don’t believe we ever met, and after reading your exit questionnaire, I am grateful that we didn’t.”

According to the paper, Stuban was made aware of Logan’s brusque response, and, perhaps not surprisingly, felt the chairman failed to see the point of his missive.

“If it was an effective company and someone told you there are problems and no morale, you don’t have to believe me, but maybe someone should check into it.”

No one outside this particular organization can really say how accurate Stuban’s depiction of its culture may or may not be. And who knows how the commission has responded, or plans to respond, to the issues that Stuban alleges exist within the agency.

But if morale really is a problem there, then Logan’s reaction to Stuban’s candid, albeit harsh, feedback probably won’t encourage other workers to offer their honest (and invaluable) opinions to those above them. And that’s the organization’s loss.

Disability Stigma Alive and Well

Came across this post on LinkedIn the other day, reminding us all about the importance of giving disabled Americans the chance to 512903522-disabilityprove themselves in the workplace.

Included in the general reminder by Amber Fritsch, a talent-management consultant, were other reminders for employers — including  the new provisions regarding leave as a reasonable accommodation — the Employer-Provided Leave and the Americans with Disabilities Act — released by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission earlier this year. Would be nice to think we’re moving in the right direction toward giving the more than 56 million Americans with disabilities a fair shake in corporate America.

But then I harked back to something I had come across earlier in the year — a mention of a movie I can’t say I’ve seen and can’t say I want to: Me Before You.

According to this recent post by Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, president of RespectAbilityUSA.org, the film is “the latest Hollywood movie to end with the assisted suicide or euthanasia of the lead character with a disability.”

She calls it “yet another case of ‘ableism’ — prejudice that people with disabilities are somehow less human, less valuable, less capable than others — and should simply die.”

Pretty grim description, but not too far removed from the stigma disabled job candidates still face, she says. The latest research from Mizrahi’s organization shows the numbers of working disabled Americans is still woefully low.

It cites findings that only one-in-three Americans with a disability has a job today and, of those who do, 400,000 work in sheltered workshops, also known as “enclaves” or “crews.” These institutions literally and legally can and frequently do pay people with disabilities sub-minimum wages, says Mizrahi. She adds:

“The lack of opportunity for people with disabilities leads to poverty, prison and, as we see in the fictionalized true story behind Me Before You, even death.”

In a follow-up conversation, Mizrahi cited a Keller Foundation study showing 70 percent of people with disabilities are working age and currently striving for work. Only 34 percent have any job, however. From her vantage point …

“There has been NO improvement in the labor-force-participation rate in decades for people with disabilities. Zippo. And because other groups made progress and we did not, the gap in [those] rates between people with and those without disabilities has increased substantially.” 

She thinks a serious, systemic and ongoing communications campaign highlighting the benefits of inclusive hiring and self-employment is needed in this country so “people with disabilities can achieve the American dream, just like anyone else.”

Not sure why this hasn’t happened yet. Also not sure what the underlying problem is. And it’s not like we haven’t probed the matter. This recent HREOnline news analysis shows problems of recognizable bias in the hiring process still in existence at a majority of companies.

As Paula Brantner, executive director of Workplace Fairness in Silver Spring, Md., says in that story:

“You start with the adherence to the law [i.e., the Americans with Disabilities Act], but until you get to where people can actually work side-by-side with someone who has a disability, it’s going to be hard to overcome some of those deeply held biases that are really unfounded in reality.

“HR needs to send the message that this is a company that welcomes workers with disabilities and then facilitate that process every step of the way.”

HRE Editor David Shadovitz’s more-positive HRE Daily post last year at least cites some evidence that disabled workers and job applicants are starting to overcome some of these barriers.

The post includes statistics from John O’Neill, director of employment and disability research at the Kessler Foundation, showing that roughly 16 percent of those with disabilities say they’ve experienced barriers resulting from supervisors’ attitudes and about the same proportion experienced barriers resulting from co-workers’ attitudes.

But when you ask them about their ability to overcome those barriers, about 41 percent of the former said they were able to do that and 54 percent of the latter said the same.

So there’s hope. But the overcoming efforts shouldn’t rest on the shoulders of disabled workers alone.

The Zenefits Saga Continues

It appears Zenefits woes are continuing—and if the predictions of one consultant are correct, they aren’t likely to end anytime soon.

Yesterday, Washington State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler ordered Zenefits to “cease free distribution of its employee benefits software, noting the tactic violates Washington state insurance law against inducements,” his office’s statement reads.zenefitslogo

Washington is said to be the first state to take action against the company for violating inducement laws. Under an agreement with Kreidler, Zenefits can challenge the order within 90 days.

The state took issue with the fact that Zenefits required clients to designate it as its broker of record and then collected insurance commissions from the products it sold in order for them to access its free software.

“The inducement law in Washington is clear,” Kreidler said. “Everyone has to play by the same rules.”

Following the announcement, Zenefits’ General Counsel Josh Stein posted the following on the company’s website

“Today, Zenefits has reached a compromise agreement with the Washington Office of the Insurance Commissioner (OIC) on how Zenefits will price its services in Washington State.  Beginning January 1, at the order of OIC, Zenefits may no longer provide free software services in Washington. As a result, Zenefits will charge all Washington state customers $5 per employee per month for our core HR product.”

Stein went on to say …

“The Washington viewpoint is a decidedly minority view. Since its founding, Zenefits has had conversations with regulators about our business model, which includes some free HR apps. Many states have looked into the issue and concluded that free software from Zenefits is not a problem; in fact, it’s in the interest of consumers. Only one state other than Washington has disagreed.  Utah’s department of insurance tried to force Zenefits to raise prices for consumers, and Utah’s state legislature and governor quickly took action, passing a bill to clarify that its rebating statute should not be interpreted to prohibit innovative new business models that deliver value to consumers.”

Earlier today, I spoke with Rhonda Marcucci, partner and consultant in Gruppo Marcucci, a Chicago-based HR and benefits technology consulting firm.

Zenefits has created its own regulatory scrutiny reputation for the rest of its life, Marcucci told me. In this case, she said, “I don’t think it is driven so much by the brokers but by the insurance departments who are extremely angry about the licensing piece—so that now invites more scrutiny in other places. Brokers may have brought it to [the attention of insurance regulators], but the way I look at this, Zenefits is a regulatory penalty box—and they will be, I think, forever.”

Marcucci noted that every state, except for California, has some kind of no rebating or inducement laws for transactions. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that every employer is following the law.

At the end of day, she said, states typically base their decision on enforcing these laws by “who screams the loudest.”

As far as Zenefits is concerned, Marcucci said, it’s realistic to expect that other states might follow Washington’s lead, especially those states with difficult regulatory insurance environments such as New York.

The Gig Economy: Pros and Cons

More than one in 10 working Americans have joined the so-called gig economy, working as freelancers or independent contractors, according to a survey of 1,008 people from ReportLinker. A third of respondents said they would consider exiting the traditional workplace to work in the gig economy, while nearly half said they would be willing to consider doing so within the next three years.

Why would so many consider giving up the security and benefits of a full-time job for the uncertainties of gig work? Twenty eight percent of survey respondents cited “being your own boss,” while the ability to work flexible hours came in second. Nearly 40 percent of job seekers say they’d consider becoming an independent contractor, as would 59 percent of part-time workers and 33 percent of students, according to the survey.

The lack of benefits is a drawback for those working in the gig economy, however, with one in four of the respondents who work as freelancers citing the lack of retirement benefits as a downside. Indeed, the lack of traditional job benefits such as sick-leave pay and unemployment benefits has led the United Kingdom to appoint a team of four experts to review the impact of “disruptive” businesses such as Uber and Deliveroo on that nation’s workforce, reports the BBC. The panelists include Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the Royal Society for the Arts.

“One of the key issues for the review is ensuring that our system of employment rules are fit for the fast-changing world of work,” Taylor writes in a piece for the Guardian newspaper.

“As well as making specific recommendations, I hope the review will promote a national conversation and explore how we can all contribute to work that provides opportunity, fairness and dignity,” he told the BBC.

The lack of benefits typical in most gig economy jobs has resonated Stateside as well, of course, with a number of gig workers filing suit alleging that they’re actually employees, not independent contractors, and are thus eligible for benefits such as unemployment compensation. In response, companies that employ freelancers are pushing for bills that promote “portable” benefits that workers would be able to take from job to job. Online home-cleaning company Handy, for example, is circulating a draft bill in the New York State legislature that would establish guidelines for portable benefits for workers in that state’s gig-economy companies, reports Reuters. The bill would classify workers at companies choosing to participate in the program as independent contractors rather than employees under state law, as long as the companies’ dealings with their workers “meet certain criteria.”

Not all are pleased with the bill. Larry Engelstein, executive vice president of 32BJ Service Employees International Union, criticized it as offering workers too little.

“The amount of money that’s supposed to be put into these portable benefit funds seems so meager,” Engelstein told Reuters. “The actual benefit a worker is getting hardly warrants what the worker is giving up.”

A Bad-Behavior Hiring Predictor

Assessing job candidates for honesty and integrity is nothing new in hiring and HR. Employers have been concerned about who exactly is 103579486-executive-in-handcuffsworking for them — their moral fiber, if you will — long before the Bernie Madoff and Enron scandals rocked corporate America. A quick rundown of a search on HREOnline for “honesty” proves the topic has been around for quite some time.

But this release about a new tool that can help employers in the financial sector and their hiring managers predict whether a prospective hire might compromise a company’s reputation by engaging in fraud, deceit or some other type of errant behavior seemed new and different enough to catch my eye.

Veris Benchmarks created the tool and claims in its release that, by applying it to all job candidates, a company can “improve its hiring process in 15 minutes and help to protect its image and reputation.”

To develop the test, Veris sent its chief scientist, George Paajanen, an expert in the area of psychometrics, into the American prison system to build a tool that identifies the character traits manifested in currently incarcerated white-collar felons. David Shulman, Veris’ CEO and founder, and a Wall Street veteran who’s spent more than 30 years in the institutional-financial-services industry, describes his motivation behind creating the tool:

“Veris Benchmarks was really inspired by the Madoff scandal. After family members and friends were directly impacted by the corrupt scheme, I became consumed with trying to determine precisely what firms were doing to better understand those being hired to act in a fiduciary capacity.

“Executives now have the responsibility to take advantage of new methods to help protect their companies, their shareholders and, even more importantly, their customers. What are companies doing to better understand how their employee would respond when faced with situations of moral gray?”

Of course, fraud and theft are not isolated to the financial industry. Cheating and moral breakdowns happen everywhere. As the release states, “from embezzlement at the dentist’s office, to the PTA, to the retail space and beyond, employee theft amounts to billions of dollars of losses annually.”

As Shulman muses:

“Issues of impropriety have burdened industries and businesses for centuries. What if companies could detect potential malice and the likelihood of theft before the key players were ever hired?”

“What if,” indeed.

Of course, this is but one tool out there. My hunch is there will be more like this to come — tools specific to predicting bad behavior before it ever enters your doors.

Landmark Ruling on the Horizon?

A new landmark ruling affecting how employers view sexuality when considering applicants could soon be in the offing, according to Reuters.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments tomorrow in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, in which a former Ivy Tech adjunct professor, Kimberly Hively, claims the college refused to allow her to interview for a full-time job and ultimately did not renew her contract because she is a lesbian.

The case , Reuters notes, gives the 7th Circuit a historic opportunity to fix what three of its own judges have called “a jumble of inconsistent precedents” and a “confused hodge-podge of cases.” If the full appellate court sides with Hively and her lawyers from the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, gays and lesbians will finally receive protection under federal law from workplace discrimination.

Lambda Legal lawyer Kenneth Upton told Reuters:

“Sexual orientation doesn’t have anything to do with employees’ ability to do their job,” Upton said. “It shouldn’t be a determiner of whether you should continue to be employed.”

The Hively case spotlights a weird legal paradox, according to the Reuters piece.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act forbids employers from treating workers unequally on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. A plurality of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court said in 1989’s Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins that employers cannot discriminate against workers who don’t conform to sex stereotypes.

Yet as a three-judge panel at the 7th Circuit explained last summer in its since-vacated Hively opinion, every federal appellate court to have considered the question of whether employers can discriminate based on workers’ sexual orientation has concluded that Title VII’s bar on sex discrimination doesn’t give redress to gays and lesbians.

Upton added that three-judge panels at the 5th and 2nd Circuits are also facing the question, so ultimately, it will probably be up to the Supreme Court to provide an answer.

 

Undervaluing the Human Element

If you’ve heard it from one CHRO, you’ve heard it from a hundred: Our people are our greatest asset.

A new Korn Ferry Institute study suggests that most CEOs also appreciate the hard-working employees within the organizations they lead—just maybe not quite as much as they value technology.

More specifically, the recent survey saw 63 percent of 800 business leaders from multimillion-dollar global organizations saying that technology will be their greatest source of competitive advantage in five years. In addition, 67 percent said they believe technology will create greater future value than human capital will within their firms, and 44 percent said the prevalence of robotics, automation and artificial intelligence figure to make people “largely irrelevant in the future of work.”

As if that wasn’t hard enough for employees to hear, consider that people didn’t crack the top five in terms of assets that CEOs predict will be most critical half a decade from now. Technology ranked No. 1, followed by research and development, products/services, brand and real estate (offices, factories and land, for example.)

“CEOs have a significant blind spot in the way they perceive people,” according to the Korn Ferry Institute study, “tending to undervalue human capital.”

These “distorted perceptions” demonstrate the extent to which the individual is being pushed to the periphery of tomorrow’s workplace—and the danger in failing to recognize the potential of employees to generate value, the report continues.

In placing a greater emphasis on technology and tangible assets, chief executives “may be demonstrating, in a big way, what experts call tangibility bias. Facing uncertainty, they are putting a priority in their thinking, planning and execution on the tangible—what they can see, touch and measure.”

In the report, Korn Ferry Search Vice Chairman, CEO and Board Services Alan Guarino cautions against taking that approach while overlooking human capital.

“Leaders are placing a high emphasis on technical skills, technological prowess and the ability to drive innovation in their new senior recruits—elements critical for modern organizations,” says Guarino. “However, the financial reality proven by this study—that the value of people outstrips that of machines by a considerable distance—must give CEOs pause for thought.”

The ability to lead and manage culture—”so-called ‘soft skills,’ ” says Guarino—will become “critical factors of success for companies in the future of work, as they seek to maximize their value through their people.”

Who knows the organization’s people better than the HR executive? And, if what Guarino says is true, one could look at this study’s findings as a tremendous opportunity for the HR leader to help the CEO see the tremendous worth of human capital, and to help make the organization’s workers an irreplaceable, invaluable part of tomorrow’s workforce.

The EEOC Enforcement Agenda

Earlier this week, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued its updated enforcement guidance on national origin discrimination.

(The EEOC also issued two resource documents to accompany the guidance: a Q & A publication on the guidance document and a small business fact sheet designed to illustrate the guidance’s chief points in plain language, according to the organization.)

The new guidance defines national origin discrimination as “discrimination because an individual (or his or her ancestors) is from a certain place or has the physical, cultural or linguistic characteristics of a particular national origin group.”

The documents also address Title VII’s prohibition on national origin discrimination as applied to a broad range of employment situations and highlight practices for employers to prevent discrimination, as well as discussing legal developments since 2002, when the EEOC issued the national origin discrimination compliance manual section that these new guidelines are intended to replace.

“EEOC is dedicated to advancing opportunity for all workers and ensuring freedom from discrimination based on ethnicity or country of origin,” says EEOC Chair Jenny R. Yang, in a statement.

“This guidance addresses important legal developments over the past 14 years on issues ranging from human trafficking to workplace harassment. The examples and promising practices included in the guidance will promote compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws and help employers and employees better understand their legal rights and responsibilities.”

This announcement comes just weeks after the EEOC unveiled its Strategic Enforcement Plan for fiscal years 2017 through 2021. One pillar of this plan is the agency’s expanding focus on protecting immigrant and migrant workers, such as those who are Muslim or Sikh or persons of Arab, Middle Eastern or South Asian descent, as well as those perceived to be members of these groups, as HRE’s Julie Cook-Ramirez noted earlier this month.

Of course, the EEOC’s new guidelines and its stated strategy for the next five years arrive almost exactly two months before the scheduled inauguration of President-Elect Donald Trump, who stands to significantly shake up the agency’s agenda.

In a recent blog post at www.law360.com, law professor Michael LeRoy explains how the incoming president could very well upend the EEOC’s enforcement agenda with regard to national origin (and other forms of) discrimination.

“Trump’s popularity derives in no small measure from people who are tired of ‘political correctedness,’ ” writes LeRoy, a professor in the School of Labor and Employment Relations and College of Law at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. “This concept is generally found in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations that prohibit employers from creating a ‘hostile work environment.’ ”

That term applies to sexual harassment, but racial, religious and national origin harassment as well, adds LeRoy.

“A Trump EEOC could redline ‘hostile work environment,’ thereby signaling that no federal employment policy prohibits the type of degrading language that Trump has used against women, Mexican, Muslims and other groups.”

For that matter, President Trump will have the opportunity to appoint high-ranking personnel that could in turn impact staffing decisions throughout the EEOC, potentially shifting the agency’s enforcement priorities, as Seyfarth Shaw attorneys recently pointed out.

In addition to the possibility that President Trump could designate a new EEOC chair, the agency will see General Counsel David Lopez leave at the end of 2016.

“[Lopez’s] impending departure means that President Trump will have an early opportunity to appoint his successor,” Seyfarth attorneys wrote. “These leadership changes at the highest levels of the EEOC will undoubtedly impact the direction the agency takes in the future.”

A Trump administration could also signal budgetary constraints for the EEOC, which may alter the way the agency approaches enforcement of discrimination guidelines.

“Historically, the EEOC adapted by focusing its enforcement efforts on systemic litigation, meaning targeting high-impact cases that address policies or patterns or practices that have a broad impact on a region, industry or entire class of employees or job applicants,” Seyfarth attorneys note. “The theory was that large, high-profile cases, settlements and judgments would have a greater deterrent effect, and would therefore affect a larger number of workers and industries.”

Faced with the possibility of fewer resources and new personnel, however, the EEOC of the near future could be forced to find “new and creative ways to adapt its enforcement program (and its own political viability) to the new reality.”

 

Thanksgiving with Co-workers

In advance of the upcoming feast day known as Thanksgiving, CareerBuilder has released a survey detailing how employees will be spending the holiday.

“Employees appear to be growing closer to those at work, or find it more difficult to break away from the office for Thanksgiving,” according to the press release announcing the annual survey, which was conducted nationally online by Harris Poll from August 11 to September 7, 2016 and included more than 3,300 workers across industries and company sizes.

More than one in four workers (28 percent) say they celebrate Thanksgiving with co-workers either in or out of the office – a substantial increase over 20 percent in 2015 and 19 percent in 2014. (Houston, Dallas and Miami continue to lead other major cities in percentage of workers that spend the holiday with co-workers.)

And more than 1 in 5 employees (22 percent) have to work on Thanksgiving (on par with last year) according the survey.

Below are the demographic breakouts of the survey.

Workers Who Celebrate Thanksgiving with Co-workers By:
 
U.S. Markets with the Largest Economies:

  • Houston: 44 percent
  • Dallas: 36 percent
  • Miami: 35 percent
  • Atlanta: 32 percent
  • New York: 27 percent
  • Los Angeles: 26 percent
  • Washington DC: 22 percent
  • Chicago: 20 percent
  • Boston: 19 percent
  • Philadelphia: 18 percent

Region

  • South: 37 percent
  • West: 27 percent
  • Midwest: 23 percent
  • Northeast: 22 percent

Industry

  • Healthcare: 33 percent
  • Retail: 32 percent
  • Sales: 32 percent
  • Transportation: 30 percent
  • Manufacturing: 26 percent

Diverse Groups

  • Hispanic workers: 35 percent
  • LGBT workers: 35 percent
  • African American workers: 33 percent
  • Asian workers: 31 percent
  • Disabled workers: 27 percent

This compares to 29 percent of non-diverse workers (defined as white, straight, non-disabled male under 50) vs. 19 percent in 2015.

Age 

  • 18-24: 36 percent
  • 25-34: 35 percent
  • 35-44: 27 percent
  • 45-54: 25 percent
  • 55+: 20 percent

If, like many of my colleagues, your holiday weekend begins when today’s work day ends, then I wish you a happy and healthy holiday.

Trump Win Good for Biz Women??

Not one for post-election posting here, but this LinkedIn piece by Sallie Krawcheck caught my eye. As a woman watching and dv496065aweathering the campaign, and now the transition to a Trump presidency, I wanted to make sure as many women — and men — as possible saw it too.

Her premise that “Donald Trump as president of the United States could just be the best thing that has happened to professional women in a long time … huh? what?” is right in Krawcheck’s wheelhouse. She’s the CEO of Ellevest, a digital investment platform for women; chair of Ellevate Network, a global professional women’s network; and author of Own It: The Power of Women at Work, to be released in January. As she puts it,

“We’re awake now. That’s because it’s all out in the open: the Billy Bush conversation, the recent New York Times OpEd on “bro talk on Wall Street,” even the light sentence for Brock Turner.  And while as a mother and an aunt, I hate it, I hate it, I hate it that we haven’t made more progress for younger women, this does represent an odd form of forward motion: We can’t really deal with an issue until we fully understand the issue.”

It’s a compelling piece and worth the read, whatever your gender or persuasion, political or otherwise. This new Trump era, ushered in by stepped-up conversations about the treatment of women, comes with “some proof that we can’t rely on others to fight this battle for us, and so we must redouble our efforts,” Krawcheck says. “… I’m hearing from more and more women that we must ‘put on our big-girl pants’ and do this ourselves..”

And it’s not like women don’t have the resources, she adds. “[W]e control $5 trillion of investable assets, we direct 80 percent of consumer spending, we’re more than half of the workforce. We’ve got a lot of power.”

Krawcheck’s list of what to do to claim and use that power is impressively detailed, and long. Just some of her many suggestions — some we’ve heard and written about, some we haven’t — include mentoring and sponsoring other women, amplifying what other women say in meetings, pointing out to others when they interrupt other women or ignore them in meetings, pointing out when the words they use to compliment men (“aggressive” or “go-getter”) are used to put down women and refusing to work at the company that doesn’t “get it” on making the work environment one in which you can be successful.

She also bangs the political drum some, post-election, suggesting women start donating to female candidates whose views line up with theirs, and start running for office and encourage other women to run for office.

And the financial-independence drum:

“[D]oing all that we can to be in financial control feels more important today than it did [before the election]. It’s important that we break the old gender norms of ‘the man manages the money; I manage the household.’ That leaves us retiring with two-thirds the money of men … but living five-plus years longer than they do. …

“[P]lease get yourself a financial plan and invest.”

All politics and election furor aside, Krawcheck gave me some serious things to think about. If any of this gets you thinking about new approaches to help the women in your organization claim their power and succeed, then all the better.