All posts by Mark McGraw

Studying Sleep at Goodyear

According to Dr. Brent Pawlecki, the goal of his Thursday morning presentation here at Human Resource Executive‘s Health & Benefits Leadership Conference (held April 19 – 21 at the Aria Resort & Casino in Las Vegas) was to “make the case for why sleep is important” to employees’ health.

Making that case was also part of his plan when he took over as chief health officer at Akron, Ohio-based Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. six years ago.

At the time, the company has begun investing more in the health of its 69,000 employees around the world. Pawlecki was brought in to “build a culture of health” at the organization. When he took the job in 2011, he was charged with helping Goodyear to better define its overall healthy strategy.

“We said, we’re a global company, with well over 20,000 U.S.-based employees,” says Pawlecki. “We need to build a strong foundation of healthy employees here in the U.S.”

Part of that building process was addressing the impact of sleep, or the lack thereof, on Goodyear employees. Why study sleep?

“I was at a conference where I attended a presentation on how sleep affects workers,” says Pawlecki. “And I thought that, if we can get our employees thinking and talking about sleep issues—which could be caused by or contributing to underlying health issues— then maybe we can get them to focus on those larger issues.”

Enter Big Health, the San Francisco-based provider of the Sleepio sleep health app.

Sharing the stage with Pawlecki was Jenna Carl, medical director at Big Health. She talked about the “hidden nature” of behavioral health problems, and how tackling sleep issues might “offer a gateway to solving mental health problems” and subsequently creating healthier and happier workers.

Those suffering from insomnia, for instance, often find themselves more easily irritated and more sensitive to stress, she says.

“Insomnia also affects the frontal cortex—the CEO of the brain—which is responsible for decision making,” continues Carl. “And, behaviorally, those with sleep problems fall into a vicious cycle. They start worrying about not sleeping, and/or might start using more caffeine or alcohol, which actually have a negative impact on the ability to sleep.”

Naturally, employees trying to work their way through such problems are going to be less than their best while on the job. Pawlecki and Goodyear were acutely aware of this reality when bringing in Big Health to help conduct a sleep awareness campaign, “designed to engage good and poor sleepers,” says Carl.

The campaign began with encouraging employees to take a sleep test, the results of which led to creating personalized plans for employees who took part.

In getting employees to participate, “it’s important to know your employee population in order to know how to reach them,” says Carl.

Goodyear, for example, has 24,000 U.S. employees spread across plants and retail locations. Roughly 60 percent of these associates have no company email address, says Pawlecki.

As such, the initial sleep awareness campaign included home mailers and in-person communications in the form of posters and animated videos geared toward these workers, as well as providing intranet articles and sending emails detailing the campaign to those with Goodyear email accounts.

Overall, the campaign netted 2,798 employees who completed the sleep test, the majority of whom suffered from poor sleep, says Carl, adding that about one third of these workers could meet the clinical criteria for insomnia, while around half were experiencing less-than-optimal sleep. Plant workers, she says, struggled the most.

These plant employees also reported that poor sleep impacted their productivity close to 28 percent of the time, with retail workers saying that sleep affects their productivity 23 percent of the time. Office workers said that inadequate rest took a toll on their work 21 percent of the time.

“This is a pretty significant impact,” says Carl, adding that Goodyear employees who used the Sleepio app and underwent cognitive therapy reported getting an additional five hours of sleep per week after using the application. Those same workers also saw their stress reduced by 54 percent, and experienced a 35 percent drop in anxiety.

“These are obviously big improvements,” says Carl, noting that these workers also reported productivity improvements in addition to improving their overall mental health.

“And that’s just from getting better sleep.”

More Woes for Whistleblowers

Even a CEO’s authority has its limits.

James Staley, the U.S. chief executive of British banking heavyweight Barclays was recently reminded of this fact, and offered other executives a case study in how not to handle a whistleblower complaint in the process.

As the New York Times reported this week, Staley finds himself being investigated by British authorities after he called on Barclays’ internal security team to try to uncover the identity of a whistleblower in an “‘honestly held’ but ‘mistaken’ belief that he had clearance to do so.” According to the Times, the Barclays security team even received assistance with the search from a United States law enforcement agency.

Staley’s effort did not sit well with the bank’s leadership, including Chairman John McFarlane, who the paper reports had “personally chastised” Staley, and had expressed his disappointment in the CEO’s actions directly to him.

The roots of McFarlane’s frustration trace back to last summer, when Stanley brought on Tim Main—a friend and former colleague of Staley’s at JPMorgan Chase—to chair Barclays’ global financial institutions group.

“Mr. Main, who was known for his team-building skills at JPMorgan, seemed like a great hire” for Staley, the Times wrote.

In order to join Staley at Barclays, Main left New York-based investment banking advisory firm Evercore Partners, where he had been “a star,” according to Roger Altman, the firm’s founder and chairman.

Just a month after Main’s hiring, however, Barclays officials received letters sent by an anonymous whistleblower who claimed that Main had “acted erratically” while at JPMorgan; a claim later supported by two JPMorgan employees who reported to Main during his time there.

Barclays did not disclose the details of the letter, but Staley reportedly took offense to the whistleblower’s allegations leveled against Main, which “related to personal issues from many years ago,” Staley wrote in an email to employees. “The intent of the correspondents in airing all of this,” he told workers, “was, in my view, to maliciously smear this person.”

In response to these claims, Staley twice asked Barclays’ internal security team to find the letter’s author. The inquiry didn’t reveal the whistleblower’s identity, and the bank ultimately disregarded his or her assertions.

While both Main and Staley have declined to comment on the situation, Staley did release a statement saying he has apologized to the Barclays board and “will accept whatever sanction it deems appropriate,” which will include a “very significant compensation adjustment,” according to the bank.

An independent law firm was commissioned to investigate Staley’s attempts to unmask Main’s anonymous former colleague, and determined that Staley “erred in seeking out the … whistleblower, but that his belief that he had clearance to do so was an honest mistake,” according to the Times.

That could very well be. But the Barclays brouhaha serves as just the latest example of the hostile treatment that whistleblowers continue to face.

Jeffrey Pfeffer, a professor of organizational behavior at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business, told the Times as much.

“Whistleblowers are typically treated horribly, even in the government, let alone in the private sector,” said Pfeffer. “People don’t like to have problems pointed out.”

Limiting Subpoena Power

As you might have heard, the Supreme Court issued a ruling this week in the case of McLane Co. Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Monday’s ruling addressed the standard of review for a district court in determining whether to enforce or quash an EEOC-issued subpoena, with the Court reversing the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and holding that federal appellate courts must review a district court’s decision whether to enforce an EEOC subpoena for abuse of discretion, and not de novo.

The case centered on a former McLane Co. employee’s claim that the Temple, Texas-based supply chain services provider discriminated against her on the basis of her gender.

In 2007, Damiana Ochoa took three months of maternity leave from her job at McLane, which requires new employees and workers returning from medical leave to undergo a physical evaluation if their job is physically demanding—which Ochoa’s was, according to court documents. Ochoa attempted the evaluation on three separate occasions, and failed to pass each time. She was subsequently fired, which led to her filing a charge of gender discrimination with the EEOC.

As part of its investigation, the EEOC issued subpoenas to McLane, requesting the names, Social Security numbers and contact information for other employees that had been required to take the same evaluation. The EEOC filed actions to enforce the subpoenas after McLane refused to comply with that request.

Finding that the aforementioned information was not relevant to the charges, a federal district court refused to enforce the subpoenas. The Ninth Circuit reversed that decision, determining that the district court had erred in characterizing the information as irrelevant.

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn that Ninth Circuit ruling offers “a good reminder that there are limits to the EEOC’s subpoena power,” says Melissa Raphan, a Minneapolis-based partner at Dorsey & Whitney.

“The practical effect of this decision for employers is twofold,” says Raphan, who is also chair of the firm’s labor and employment group. “First, it is a good reminder that the EEOC does not enjoy unfettered discretion to obtain information about other current and former employees. Second, the battleground to push back on the EEOC’s subpoena is in the district court.”

The EEOC’s subpoena power “does not allow the agency to bypass the burden of showing that the material is relevant, and, even if relevant, the employer can still show that the request is unduly burdensome.”

Ultimately, the decision’s impact on employers figures to be “somewhat limited in scope,” says John Alan Doran, a Scottsdale, Ariz.-based partner at Sherman & Howard.

Noting that only the Ninth Circuit took the position that it could review these trial court decisions “from scratch,” Doran adds that “every other jurisdiction has held that a trial court’s decision to quash or modify the scope of an EEOC opinion is subject to searching review by the appellate courts.”

As such, the decision directly affects only those employers doing business within the Ninth Circuit, continues Doran.

That said, “there is useful language for all courts to consider with respect to the scope of the EEOC’s subpoena power that employers will likely use in future run-ins with the EEOC throughout the country.”

The case is “largely about whose ox is getting gored, so it is hard to describe the decision as pro- or anti-employer,” says Doran. “In cases where an employer fails to convince a trial court to modify or quash an EEOC subpoena, this decision makes it that much harder to reverse the trial court’s decision on appeal. But where an employer successfully convinces a trial court to modify or quash a subpoena, its likelihood of success on appeal of that issue is considerably better.”

Of RIFs and FMLA Requests

Every HR professional knows that FMLA requests can get tricky, and that non-compliance can get costly. A recent court ruling shows there might be a price to pay even when an employee doesn’t explicitly make an FMLA request.

According to Crain v. Schlumberger Technology, Gregory Crain worked for 10 years as a regional sales manager for Schlumberger Technology Corp. and its predecessor company.

Terminated from his position as part of a reduction in force, Crain subsequently filed an FMLA interference claim, contending that the company violated his leave rights by letting him go just days after informing the organization that he needed to undergo surgery that would force him to take time off from work.

In October 2016, a jury agreed with Crain, awarding him $77,007; the amount of his severance. More recently, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana affirmed that ruling, awarding Crain the original verdict award along with an additional, equal amount in liquidated damages. In other words, Schlumberger must now pay double the damages.

Why? The timing of Crain’s termination was certainly a factor, according to Tina Syring, a Minneapolis-based partner at Barnes & Thornburg and a member of the firm’s labor and employment law department.

As Syring points out, Crain’s name was included in the list of employees to be included in the RIF; a list that surfaced two days after his surgery.

“Prior to the formal notification, however, the plaintiff’s name was never included in any company RIF documents, even though the employer’s witnesses claimed that the decision to include him in the RIF was made weeks before such notice.”

In the end, she says, “the jury found the employer’s witnesses less credible than the company’s lack of documentation surrounding the decision to include the plaintiff in the reduction in force.”

Syring describes this decision as a “great reminder” that documentation matters when mapping out a reduction in force.

“According to the court, given the weight of the evidence (or lack thereof) and the temporal proximity of the termination, it was not an unreasonable decision by the jury to find in favor of the plaintiff.  Thus, when addressing RIFs, employers should take the time to carefully document which employees are being considered for the RIF and update this documentation throughout the decision-making process.”

Adding another wrinkle to this case is the fact that Crain didn’t specifically mention FMLA when he told the company that he would undergo surgery and would subsequently require time away from work. He did, however, inquire as to short-term disability leave, which ultimately compels the company to weigh the possibility of FMLA leave.

“As the Crain court noted, an employee is not required to use any sort of ‘magic words’ to provide notice of the need for FMLA leave,” says Syring.

“In this situation, the plaintiff made an inquiry to human resources about short-term disability. The Crain court found that to be sufficient notice to the employer to at least make an inquiry as to whether FMLA leave notice and adherence obligations were triggered,” she says, adding that testimony had also been given to confirm that the plaintiff told his former supervisor and two HR representatives that he was going to have surgery.

“Because the company could not demonstrate that it even considered the possible application of FMLA leave prior to [Crain’s] termination, the court found that the employer’s actions were neither in good faith or reasonable.  As a result, liquidated damages were awarded against the company.”

 

 

Homing in on Behavioral Health

Just over two years ago, we posted a piece on this site highlighting findings from a Disability Management Employer Coalition study on behavioral health in the workplace.

The DMEC’s research painted what HRE described at the time as a “somewhat incongruous picture.” For example, more than 60 percent of the 314 employers polled said the stigma surrounding mental health issues at work had either stayed the same or gotten worse in the past two years. On the other hand, 37 percent of those same companies said that management had “become more open” about assessing behavioral health in that time. In 2012, 25 percent of respondents said the same, according to DMEC.

Here we are in 2017, and the findings of a new Willis Towers Watson survey suggest that the picture is starting to come into focus for employers, the overwhelming majority of which say they plan to keep upping their efforts to address mental health issues among the workforce.

The firm’s 2017 Behavioral Health Study, which polled 314 U.S. employers, finds 88 percent of respondents saying behavioral health is an important priority for their organizations over the next three years.

More specifically, 63 percent count locating more timely and effective treatment of behavioral health issues as an area of primary concern in that same span. Sixty-one percent said the same about integrating behavioral health case management with medical and disability case management. In addition, 56 percent said their organizations are concentrating on providing better support for complex behavioral health conditions, and 52 percent of employers are looking to expand access to care for mental health issues between now and the year 2020.

Beyond increasing and improving the level of care received by those with behavioral health issues, the survey also found that organizations intend to address the root causes of these issues. More than one third of respondents (36 percent) say they have already addressed and taken steps to reduce stress and improve resiliency, while 47 percent are planning or considering action designed to do so over the next three years. Twenty-eight percent currently provide educational programs that touch on the warning signs of behavioral health issues or distress, and 41 percent are planning or considering such programs.

These employers are also showing more interest in mobile apps to help employees manage behavioral health needs, according to Willis Towers Watson. The survey finds the percentage of companies including mobile applications in their service offerings on the way up. For instance, 11 percent of those surveyed already offer stress reduction or resiliency apps; a number that is expected to increase to 38 percent within three years, the study finds. And, while just 7 percent provide apps designed to help curb anxiety, 31 percent of respondents said they plan to offer such applications between now and 2020.

However they plan to reach workers with mental health needs, “employers are concerned about behavioral health issues because of the impact on costs, employee health and productivity, and workplace safety,” says Julie Stone, a national healthcare practice leader at Willis Towers Watson, in a statement.

“The seriousness of the issues—both for employers and employees—has led to a deeper understanding of the problem and greater resolve to take action.”

Employers are now more committed than ever, says Stone, to “improving access to treatment, providing employees with better coordination of care across various health programs and reducing the stigma that could be associated with behavioral health through educational programs.”

Adapting in the Digital Age

A recent Deloitte survey finds nearly 90 percent of business leaders saying that building the organization of the future is their top priority.

That’s good.

Less encouraging is the number of companies—11 percent—reporting they are ready for this undertaking, which will require them to “completely reconsider their organizational structure, talent and HR strategies to keep pace with digital disruption,” according to Deloitte.

In its 2017 Global Human Capital Trends report, the New York-based provider of audit, consulting, tax and advisory services polled more than 10,000 HR and other business leaders. Many of them feel that the human resource function is indeed struggling to keep up with technological progress, with just 38 percent of HR professionals rating their department’s digital capabilities as “good” or “excellent.”

I recently asked Josh Bersin, principal and founder of Bersin by Deloitte, how HR might have fallen behind in this department.

“What I think happened is that, especially over the last three to five years, the way people get work done has radically changed,” says Bersin. “Yet the way we write job descriptions, the way we functionally set up the organization and so on is a throwback to the 1950s or ’60s.”

HR functions that hope to keep pace in 2017 and beyond must “operate in a digital way, and be more innovative and creative,” says Bersin. “[HR must] deliver solutions that are focused on productivity, not just programs.”

There are signs within the Deloitte report, however, that suggest a growing number of companies—and their HR functions—are adapting to the digital age.

For example, the survey finds that 56 percent of firms are redesigning their HR programs to rely more on digital and mobile tools, with 33 percent saying they already use some form of artificial intelligence applications to help create a more technologically advanced work environment.

“HR and other business leaders tell us that they are being asked to create a digital workplace in order to become an ‘organization of the future,’ ” says Erica Volini, principal at Deloitte Consulting and national managing director of the firm’s U.S. human capital practice, in a statement.

“To rewrite the rules on a broad scale, HR should play a leading role in helping the company redesign the organization,” says Volini, “by bringing digital technologies to both the workforce and to the HR organization itself.”

One way CHROs can achieve this goal is to “start redefining HR as a ‘productivity enhancement department,’ ” adds Bersin.

“Culture is important, and it’s important to have a solid employment brand, and it’s important to recruit the best talent. But the bigger problem most CEOs and CHROS have is getting their organizations to function and operate in a more networked world. And when HR rolls out programs that [employees] don’t feel enhance their productivity, workers don’t use them.

“There are certain things—regulatory training, compliance, for instance—that HR has to do,” continues Bersin. “But outside of those things, if an HR program or initiative isn’t something that helps employees add value to their jobs, you have to rethink whether it’s the right thing to do.”

Sacrificing Safety or Creating Jobs?

The fate of an Obama-era piece of legislation designed to improve worker safety appears to be anything but safe.

On Monday, the U.S. Senate voted by the slimmest of margins—49 to 48—to eliminate the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule, which was created to “limit the ability of companies with recent safety problems to compete for government contracts unless they agreed to remedies,” as the Washington Post reported this week.

Signed by then-President Barack Obama on July 31, 2014, the executive order required prospective federal contractors bidding on federal deals worth more than $500,000 to disclose their violations of certain workplace protection laws before receiving a contract. The rule also obligated federal agencies to work with noncompliant contractors in an effort to address existing safety-related issues.

The regulation was put on hold, however, by an October 2016 court order determining that it exceeded congressional limits. A measure to abolish it has since made it through the House, and this week’s Senate vote all but assures that will now happen. President Donald Trump is expected to sign off on rolling back the rule—just one of a handful of worker safety regulations the administration is eyeing for elimination.

“This is the opening salvo of the Republicans’ war on workers,” Deborah Berkowitz, senior policy adviser at OSHA, told the Post. “It sends a signal that Congress and the administration is listening to big business and their lobbyists and they are not standing up for the interests of the American workers.”

Meanwhile, groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable contend that the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule hampers businesses’ ability to compete for government contracts, which subsequently reduces jobs.

“Any changes in employment laws proposed by the employer community [are] disingenuously described [by Democrats] as an attack on workers,” Randy Johnson, the U.S. Chamber’s senior vice president for labor, immigration and employee benefits, told the Post. “The left has never seen a regulation they don’t like, no matter how many jobs it kills.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) doubts that the motives behind wiping out this particular rule have much to do with saving or generating jobs.

“Instead of creating jobs or raising wages, they’re trying to make it easier for companies that get big-time, taxpayer-funded government contracts to steal wages from their employees and injure their workers without admitting responsibility,” she said in a Senate floor speech ahead of Monday’s vote.

As the Post points out, the eradication of the Safe Workplaces rule is likely just the first phase of a Congressional movement to “kill Labor Department regulations.”

The “Volks rule,” for instance, could be next.

Adopted in January, the rule was meant to “give OSHA authority to issue citations and levy fines against companies for failure to record illnesses, injuries and deaths that date back as far as five years,” according to the paper.

U.S. Representative Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.) has introduced a measure that would do away with the rule, which he has described as an overreach.

“If you are determined to be a bad actor, you’ll be a bad actor,” Byrne told the Post. “I don’t think this is going to encourage noncompliance. I think OSHA is being lazy on getting its investigations done.”

For their part, Congressional Democrats maintain that rejecting the rule would undermine OSHA’s efforts to enforce safety reporting requirements.

For example, Rep. Robert C. Scott, of Virginia, says doing so would “create a safe harbor for those employers who deliberately underreport.”

The arguments coming from both sides of the aisle with respect to such workplace-related regulations are nothing new, and are sure to continue. But it seems every bit as certain that we’re going to find out what sort of impact taking these rules away will have on workplace safety.

HR Automation is on the Way

We might never see the human touch completely leave the HR suite—it is the human resource department, after all—but new research suggests that automation is still going to significantly touch the function in the years to come.

The pace of automation in HR might be a bit slower than in other departments, though. In a survey of 719 HR managers and recruiters, CareerBuilder finds that, while more companies are turning to technology to address time-consuming and labor-intensive talent acquisition and management tasks that are susceptible to human error, a “significant proportion” of firms still rely on manual processes. For example, 34 percent of respondents said their companies don’t use technology automation to recruit candidates, while 44 percent don’t automate onboarding and 60 percent said they don’t automate human capital management activities for employees.

So, what is being automated within HR? According to the CareerBuilder study, most automation is centered around messaging, benefits and compensation, “but there is room to increase efficiencies across a variety of basic functions.” Among employers reporting that they automate at least one part of talent acquisition and management, 57 percent said they are automating employee messaging, with 53 percent and 47 percent saying the same about setting up employee benefits and payroll, respectively. In addition, 47 percent indicated that their organizations have automated background screening and drug testing.

Not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority (93 percent) of those whose companies have automated part of their talent acquisition and management processes say they’ve saved time and increased efficiency by doing so. Another 71 percent feel their organizations have improved the candidate experience by automating some processes, with 69 percent saying they’ve reduced errors and 67 percent reporting they’ve saved money and resources.

As organizations expand and add employees, “there’s a certain tipping point where things can no longer be managed efficiently and accurately by hand,” says Rosemary Haefner, CHRO at CareerBuilder, in a statement.

In order to successfully turn certain HR-specific tasks over to technology, “automation needs to be incorporated,” says Haefner, “so the HR team is free to focus on strategies versus tasks, and focus on building relationships with employees and candidates.”

As certain functions on teams become more automated, she says, “we’ll see those workers’ roles evolve and concentrate on the strategic, social and motivational components of HR that technology cannot address.”

 

 

Googlers Pass on Massive Payouts

Can you have too much of a good thing?

A handful of Googlers working on the company’s self-driving car project seem to think so.

The Mountain View, Calif.-based tech giant’s car unit—which in December 2016 spun off into a standalone business known as Waymo—has seen staffers exiting in noteworthy numbers, and walking away from potentially huge paydays in the process, as Bloomberg reports this week.

The unit “has been a talent sieve” for at least the past year, according to Bloomberg, “thanks to leadership changes, strategy doubts, new start-up dreams and rivals luring self-driving technology experts.”

But the business’s “unusual compensation system that awarded supersized payouts based on the project’s value” has helped contribute to its retention struggles, notes Bloomberg. “By late 2015, the numbers were so big that several veteran members didn’t need the job security anymore, making them more open to other opportunities, according to people familiar with the situation. Two people called it ‘F-you money.’ ”

Indeed, “a large multiplier” was applied to compensation packages toward the end of that year, “resulting in multimillion-dollar payments in some cases,” Bloomberg reports, adding that one member of the team had a multiplier of 16 applied to bonuses and equity amassed over four years, for example.

The same article points out that the system was revamped when the autonomous car unit morphed into Waymo late last year, and replaced with a more uniform pay structure that treats all employees equally. By that time, however, “the original program got so costly that a top executive at parent Alphabet Inc. highlighted it last year to explain a jump in expenses.

“The payouts contributed to a talent exodus at a time when the company was trying to turn the project into a real business,” the article continues, “and emerging rivals were recruiting heavily.”

Part of the issue at Waymo “was that payouts snowballed after key milestones were reached, even though the ultimate goal of the project—fully autonomous vehicles provided to the public through commercial services—remained years away.”

While reports have underscored rumblings within the car division, ranging from questions surrounding the unit’s leadership and strategy to engineers’ designs on starting their own self-driving vehicle companies, “the big payouts exacerbated the [turnover] situation because team members had less financial incentive to stay,” according to Bloomberg.

Ironic, isn’t it, that the company would start losing talent by paying them too much? When was the last time your organization had this problem? If there’s a lesson here for HR and compensation professionals, it might be that over-the-top rewards might end up having unintended consequences, and that massive lumps of cash don’t necessarily guarantee employee loyalty.

Millennials on the Move?

For years, employers have been led to believe that millennial workers are habitual job-hoppers with one eye always on the door.

That perception—if it was ever accurate in the first place—might be increasingly off the mark.

Consider the 2017 Millennial Survey conducted by Deloitte. In a poll of roughly 8,000 millennial-age workers from 30 countries, 38 percent of respondents said they would leave their jobs within two years if given the opportunity. That number stood at 44 percent when Deloitte carried out the same survey last year. Additionally, 31 percent anticipate staying in their present roles beyond five years, compared to the 27 percent who said as much in 2016.

Some of the circumstances driving Generation Y to seek more stability in the workplace, it turns out, have little to do with work. For example, the survey sees the effects of terror attacks in Europe, the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union and—no surprise—a brutally contentious political climate in the United States leading millennials to cling more closely to the security of their current jobs.

Such matters are the main source of anxiety among millennials in mature markets such as France, Germany and the U.S. Meanwhile, a majority of Gen Y workers (58 percent) in emerging markets like Argentina, Brazil and India see crime and corruption as an even bigger threat, with 50 percent saying the same about hunger/healthcare/inequality.

“Millennials, especially those in mature European economies, have serious concerns about the directions in which their countries are going,” according to an executive summary of the findings. “They are particularly concerned about uncertainty arising from conflict, as well as other issues that include crime, corruption and unemployment.”

Indeed, the specter of unemployment lingers from past surveys, according to Deloitte, as this year’s poll finds 25 percent of millennials fearing the prospect of being out of work.

“Having lived through the ‘economic meltdown’ that began in 2008, and with high levels of youth unemployment continuing to be a feature of many economies, it is natural that millennials will continue to be concerned about the job market,” according to Deloitte.

Taken together, these factors are conspiring to create a real sense of fear among millennials, many of whom fret for their futures. In mature markets, for instance, just 36 percent of millennials predict they will be financially better off than their parents. Only 31 percent feel they’ll ultimately be happier.

“This pessimism is a reflection of how millennials’ personal concerns have shifted,” says Punit Renjen, Deloitte’s global CEO, in a statement. “Four years ago, climate change and resource scarcity were among millennials’ top concerns. This year, crime, corruption, war and political tensions are weighing on the minds of young professionals, which impacts both their personal and professional outlooks.”

Still, while many millennial workers question their ability to affect significant societal change on their own, these same employees feel they can make a difference with their employer’s help. The good news is that the corporate world is helping them do just that, with more than half of the millennials polled saying they are able to contribute to charities and worthwhile causes in their workplaces.

Of course, the organization also wins when employees get involved in such efforts.

“The survey’s findings suggest those given such opportunities show a greater level of loyalty to their employers, which is consistent with the connection we saw last year between loyalty and a company’s sense of purpose,” according to Jim Moffatt, Deloitte global consulting CEO.

“But, we are also seeing that purpose has benefits beyond retention. Those who have a chance to contribute are less pessimistic about their countries’ general social [and] political situations, and have a more positive opinion of business behavior.”