Category Archives: HR profession

Home (From Work) For the Holidays

empty cubeIt’s that time of year, when workloads lighten and the holidays are just ahead, and employees begin to cash in the blocks of paid days off they’ve been banking all year long.

At the risk of getting all Grinchy just eight days before Christmas, we invite you to take a look at SHRM’s new Total Financial Impact of Employee Absences Survey, which finds 75 percent of 1,280 HR professionals saying employee absences “carry hidden costs that can [affect] an organization’s productivity and revenue,” according to a SHRM statement.

That’s not all that surprising, and the survey was commissioned by Kronos Inc., which does provide workforce-management software and services, after all. So make of that figure what you will.

But one interesting finding from the survey, as this recent Washington Post article points out, is the difference in how United States-based HR professionals view the impact of unplanned work absences—defined in the survey as times when employees are sick, say they’re sick, or have to stay home to attend to personal matters—in comparison to those in other countries.

In the poll, 61 percent of U.S.-based respondents said unplanned absences increase stress for others in the workplace, while that number dipped to 54 percent and 51 percent in Australia and Europe, respectively. In addition, 48 percent of American respondents reported that unplanned absences hurt morale at the office, while just 36 percent and 31 percent said the same in Europe and Australia.

In an interview with the Post, SHRM Director of Survey Programs Evren Esen hypothesized that cultural norms in the U.S. may help explain these differing views of work absences—be they planned or unplanned. Indeed, as we’ve noted in the past, employees here in the States still aren’t guaranteed paid vacation time, and workers are sometimes hesitant to take advantage of the paid time off they do have available to them.

“There should not be a stigma for taking your vacation,” Esen told the paper, “but it’s evolved into that. And I think that’s [why] there may be a little bit of resentment or stress when others are out. ‘You’re taking vacation, or you’re sick, but I’m here and I have to deal with this.’ In other cultures, it’s more of an expectation that you take your time.”

Maybe it’s the eat, drink and be merry mindset that starts to take over around the holidays, but doesn’t it seem like maybe we should take a cue from these other cultures, and (finally) start taking a bit more time away from work?

Twitter It!

For Women, ‘Assertive’ Still Means ‘Mean’

We really haven’t come that far, fellow females.

Not when recent polls show too many women in business — whether by their own fault or by their being mislabeled — are still being 162892062 -- bitchy bossperceived as too gruff, too assertive, too downright mean when they’re in positions of authority.

When Lawrence Polsky wrote an article about “bitchy bosses” earlier this year, he garnered hundreds of responses, clearly touched a nerve and sparked a nationwide conversation about why women leaders are perceived differently than men, according to one release I read about the article .

“Ninety percent of the leaders I have coached over the past 20 years [have been] women,” says Polsky, managing partner at the Princeton, N.J.-based global consulting firm PeopleNRG.com. “I have found the reason they are called bitchy or some  version of that, by their team or colleagues, comes down to one thing: the perception of being ‘too’ assertive. It can also be a way for employees to undermine a woman leader they don’t like or are jealous of.”

Polsky followed his article up by polling 221 professionals on their perceptions of the article for a survey he appropriately titled “Bitchy Bosses” as well.

That poll found:

  • 76 percent of women reported having a “bitchy boss” in the past, compared to 64 percent of men;
  • 89 percent said it reduced team productivity;
  • 87 percent said they or someone on their team left their job because of it;
  • 79 percent said it made them less motivated to do a good job;
  • 62 percent of men said they were lied to by the boss, compared to 52 percent of women;
  • 36 percent told human resources about the problem, yet only 10 percent said HR did anything to help the situation; and
  • 15 percent called in an outside consultant, and of those, 79 percent said that didn’t help.

A recent post on this blog by Senior Editor Andrew McIlvaine supports this notion that we have a problem out there, women. His post describes, as one linguist uncovered through her research, “what seems to be a powerful bias against women who are seen as ‘too assertive’ in the workplace — and the bias seems prevalent regardless of whether the review was conducted by a man or a woman.

That research, which surveyed 248 performance reviews from 28 companies, showed women received much more critical feedback than men did. (About 59 percent of men’s reviews included critical feedback, while nearly 88 percent of women’s did.)

Some of the criticisms against women written in the reviews included: “Stop being so judgmental” and “You can come across as abrasive sometimes.” In fact, the linguist found the word “abrasive” was used 17 times to describe 13 different women, but the word never appeared in men’s reviews. (McIlvaine’s post also includes a link to an HRE piece addressing this.)

More recently, in her October column addressing the scuffle caused by Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella’s comments on women’s pay, Susan R. Meisinger, our HR Leadership columnist, acknowledges this double standard in how we come across affects pay as well.

“Some women aren’t comfortable asking for more money,” she writes, “because they fear it will adversely impact how they are perceived. The fear may be valid: Research shows that both male and female managers are less likely to want to work with women who negotiate during a job interview, since women who press for higher pay are considered pushy.”

Boy, we really can’t win for losing, can we?

Of special concern to Polsky, from the research he did, is that HR doesn’t appear to be all that effective in mitigating the perception problem, at least as it concerns female bosses.  What this means, in his estimation, is that:

“HR cannot rely on hearing about a bitchy boss from employees but must be proactive to discover if the problem exists. [HR leaders] need to look for clues, such as a leader complaining to HR: ‘The people on my team are not stepping up to the plate.’  Another sign is if you sit in team meetings and many team members are very quiet. Both are clues that there is no space for the team to contribute. This points to the fact that either the leader hasn’t built trust or is eroding it.”

He offers these tips for dealing with this issue (as well as how he gave them to me below). If HR does hear about this type of behavior in a female manager or leader:

  1. Encourage employees to talk directly to the boss. Direct feedback is the most helpful for leaders to understand the impact they are having. Our research showed 43 percent of people spoke to their troublesome boss about the problem and about one in five said it helped improve the situation.

  2. If more than one person brings it up, then they need feedback. This needs to come from their manager, not HR.  Why?  If they are to turn this around, it could get messy before it gets better.  They need their manager on their side through the process, to make them aware of the perception problem. Often, these leaders are not aware of how they are being perceived.  Their manager needs to discuss the situation with them.

  3. Oftentimes, the team and the leader need support to move through this problem.  The leader needs help pulling back and being less aggressive while the team needs help being more assertive.  Most of the times I have been involved, the team needed to learn to be more assertive to push back on an overly assertive leader’s aggressive communication. What often gets forgotten, and what we always do, is help the team go through a process of open, honest dialogue with the leaders. This creates healing and forgiveness. Employees will forgive and move forward if they believe the leader is sorry and will change.

  4. If the leaders do not change, after six months of coaching and support from HR and/or a qualified coach,  then they need to be moved to a different position where they can thrive or be removed from their job.

Also, overlook it, he says, if it’s a one-off. If there is only one person complaining, make sure this is not an employee with an axe to grind. Check into it. “I have seen where an employee with an axe to grind gave anonymous feedback to make the leader look bad,” Polsky says.

Also overlook it if the female leader has been charged with implementing a new vision/strategy/approach. “Employees,” he says, “might be complaining because the leader is  pushing them more than the previous manager/leader/situation required.”

This notion kind of feeds into a piece by Mark McGraw, posted here earlier this month, suggesting there are times when “being a jerk” can be effective in business. Unfortunately, the researchers in his piece don’t address the “bitch” factor, only the multi-gender “jerk” factor.

I guess the million-dollar question that has yet to be answered is: Why are women getting the lion’s share of the “bitch” complaints? And (perhaps for Polsky to take on in 2015) what can HR do to even that score?

 

Twitter It!

Does Being a Jerk Really Work?

work jerkA good leader knows when to be forceful and when to use finesse.

Of course, some have to fight their naturally aggressive impulses in delicate situations, while others must dig deep to find their inner Type A traits when the circumstances call for assertiveness.

A pair of laboratory studies outlined in a recent Journal of Business and Psychology article contrasted uncompromising approaches with more diplomatic methods in the workplace , and when each may be best, in terms of sharing and utilizing original ideas at work.

College professors Samuel Hunter and Lily Cushenbery sought to “investigate the relationship between lower levels of agreeableness (i.e., disagreeableness) and [the] innovation process, such as idea generation, promotion and group utilization, as well as potential contextual moderators of these relationships.”

Or, in plain English, the researchers essentially wanted to find out if being kind of a jerk helps one to spawn and advance ideas in the workplace.

The overarching theme emerging from both studies seems to be that obnoxiousness doesn’t necessarily give birth to brilliant ideas, but it may help coerce colleagues into buying what you’re selling.

That’s according to the findings of Hunter, an assistant professor of psychology at Pennsylvania State University, and Cushenbery, an assistant professor of management and director of the Leadership & Conflict Research Lab at Stony Brook University.

In their first study, 201 college students completed personality tests before strategizing together, in groups of three, to develop a marketing campaign. The authors found no real connection between disagreeableness and the originality of ideas created, but did identify a link between unpleasantness and group utilization of ideas.

The second study placed 291 individuals in an online environment to examine the originality of ideas shared with group members after manipulating both feedback and originality of ideas generated by others, and to determine the effect that creative and supportive co-workers have on the sharing of ideas.

This analysis yielded results similar to the first, with the caveat that a bit of belligerence may actually be an asset in environments where new ideas aren’t exactly welcomed with open arms.

“Disagreeable personalities may be helpful in combating the challenges faced in the innovation process, but social context is also critical,” said Cushenbery. “In particular, an environment supportive of original thinking may negate the utility of disagreeableness and, in fact, disagreeableness may hamper the originality of ideas shared.”

Ultimately, “being a ‘jerk’ may not be directly linked to who generates original ideas,” added Hunter, “but such qualities may be useful if the situation dictates that a bit of a fight is needed to get those original ideas heard and used by others.”

Twitter It!

HO HO HO-liday Bonuses

It’s that time of year again!

No, I’m not talking about Christmas, but rather the annual tradition (depending on where you work, of course) of holiday bonuses.

Two new polls on the topic of holiday bonuses were recently released by Oklahoma City-based Express Employment Professionals. The polls show that, while cash tops both sides’ wish lists, there’s precious little consensus on other “shows of appreciation.”

In an online poll of more than 200 employees and job seekers, they were asked, “How do you wish your company showed appreciation to employees?” They responded:

Cash Bonus 27%
Pay Raises 13%
Days Off or Shortened Holiday Hours 9%
Gift Cards 5%
Gift Items Other Than Money 1%
A Holiday Party 1%
Other 1%
A Combination of the Above 35%

In a separate online poll of 400 respondents, business leaders were similarly asked, “What type of holiday bonus will you give your employees this year?” While 34 percent said cash, another 21 percent said, “We will not give holiday bonuses.”

In addition, of the 7 percent who chose “other,” 27 percent self-reported Scroogish answers such as “no holiday bonuses ever.”

What Type Of Holiday Bonus Will You Give Your Employees This Year?
Cash 34%
We Will Not Give Holiday Bonuses 21%
Gift Cards 12%
Other 7%
Extra Days Off    3%
Tangible Gifts 3%
A Combination of the Above 19%

“During the holiday season, it’s important for businesses to show their appreciation to their employees,” said Bob Funk, CEO of Express, and a former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

“It can be disheartening for an employee to feel unappreciated, yet our poll indicates that more than a fifth of employers won’t give their workers anything this holiday season. You don’t have to be extravagant about your holiday bonuses, but it’s important to show recognition. As one respondent told us, ‘A thank you note will suffice.’ ”

So even if your company isn’t planning on handing out envelopes with cash in them this season, you should at least be preparing for some sort of expression of appreciation for your workers.

‘Tis the season!

Twitter It!

Would the Real CHRO Please Emerge

178125175 -- CEO, CHROWhen HRE Senior Editor Andrew R. McIlvaine posted here last month about a study written up in the Harvard Business Review detailing the similarities in traits between chief executive officers and chief human resource officers, I didn’t make the connection that hit me more recently.

His piece was about research from University of Michigan’s Dave Ulrich and Ellie Filler, a senior client partner in the Swiss office of executive recruiter Korn Ferry, examining “Why Chief Human Resource Officers Make Great CEOs.”

Turns out, according to that research, CHROs not only have traits closest to CEOs of all C-suiters combined, but the CEOs in the report, themselves, even agreed the CHRO could be a contender for their role.

Which got me thinking about an earlier report I had come across from Korn Ferry showing the two positions were as far apart as they could possibly be in a ranking of most-sought-after C-suite positions.

In that report, based on a survey of 1,055 executives, the three most desired C-suite jobs are CEO, chief operating officer and chief marketing officer. The least-sought-after? You got it, CHRO.

Interestingly, the top three most challenging posts, according to executives, are CEO, COO and chief financial officer. Least challenging? CHRO. In fact, here’s the table as it appears in the report:

Most Sought After C-Suite Position

Ranked as Most Challenging (1=most, 7=least)

CEO 87% 1
COO 86% 2
CMO 59% 4
CCO 47% 7
CIO 45% 5
CFO 36% 3
CHRO 25% 6

So what, you ask, is my “connection”? More of a curiosity, I guess. If so many executives want to be CEO and the quickest way to get there is through the CHRO’s office, then it’s puzzling to me that the latter job would be so ill-thought-of — and lacking in challenges, to boot.

Of course, as research goes — and often does — we may be looking at apples and oranges here, in terms of the specific aspects of the job being examined. Just interesting that both reports hail from the same firm.

The latter research, says Filler, takes into account the fact that many CHROs today report directly to the CEO, serve as the CEO’s key adviser and make frequent presentations to the board. And when companies search for new CHROs, many now focus on higher-level leadership abilities and strategy implementation skills.

“This role is gaining importance like never before,” she says. “It’s moved away from a support or administrative function to become much more of a game changer and the person who enables the business strategy.”

Hardly lacking in challenges and the kind of positioning that would make it highly desirable. Right?

Time will tell, I guess, just what the perception of the CHRO becomes, and how the specific and required traits and competencies evolve. Personally, I’m kind of excited to be along for the ride.

Twitter It!

Stopping ‘Sex Stereotyping’

After the Department of Labor announced a Final Rule prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity by federal contractors and subcontractors, employers are now being urged to revisit their policies to ensure they are in compliance with the new rule.

Connie Bertram, head of Proskauer’s Washington-based labor and employment law practice and co-head of Proskauer’s government regulatory compliance and relations group, says the executive order and implementing rules clarify the protections that the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs had been extending, in part, “under a ‘sex stereotyping’ theory.”

“OFCCP’s revised Federal Contract Compliance Manual, which was released last year, instructs compliance officers conducting audits to examine whether contractors policies make prohibited distinctions in the conditions of employment based on sex-based stereotypes,” she says. “OFCCP has issued several notices of violation recently based on this theory.”

The rule implements Executive Order 13672, which was signed by President Obama on July 21, and is the first federal action to specifically address LGBT workplace equality in the private sector. It will become effective 120 days after its publication in the Federal Register and will apply to federal contracts entered into or modified on or after that date. More information is available at http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/LGBT/.

“Americans believe in fairness and opportunity. No one should live in fear of being fired or passed over or discriminated against at work simply because of who they are or who they love,” said U.S. Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez. “Laws prohibiting workplace discrimination on the bases of sexual orientation and gender identity are long overdue, and we’re taking a big step forward today to fix that.”

While 18 states, the District of Columbia and many businesses, large and small, already offer workplace protections to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees, but this rule first federal action to ensure LGBT workplace equality in the private sector, according to the press release announcing the rule.

“This rule will extend protections to millions of workers who are employed by or seek jobs with federal contractors and subcontractors, ensuring that sexual orientation and gender identity are never used as justification for workplace discrimination by those that profit from taxpayer dollars,” says Patricia A. Shiu, director of the department’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, which will enforce the new requirements.

Bertram says it will be critical for contractors to update their internal and external policies, third-party notifications and affirmative action plans to include these new protected categories.

And, as with any protected category, she says, “it is critical to train managers concerning their non-discrimination obligations and to monitor compliance with the contractor’s anti-discrimination policies.

“It is not enough to ‘talk the talk,’ ” Bertram says. “[Y]ou have to ‘walk the walk’ to ensure compliance and avoid claims.”

Twitter It!

A Finger on the Employee Pulse

employee pollWe all know that employee surveys provide very usable and valuable data. But how much employee input do you need, and how often should you be asking for it?

If a recent Wall Street Journal article is any indication, some companies are searching for the sweet spot by taking a “more (and more often) is better” approach to employee surveys.

In the piece, the paper’s Rachel Emma Silverman examines the rise of “so-called ‘pulse surveys,’ ” highlighting a few employers relying on short monthly, weekly or daily polls to “provide data on how their teams actually feel and catch problems before they fester.” (Short and frequent surveys are even replacing annual employee surveys at some organizations, says Silverman, although she notes that others—Google Inc., for instance—use a combination of both.)

For example, Limeade Inc., a Seattle-based corporate wellness firm with 115 employees, sends it people quick, one-question surveys each week, seeking feedback on issues ranging from customer service improvements to holiday party ideas.

Workers answer anonymously, and the results are discussed at bi-weekly company meetings. Limeade CEO Henry Albrecht told the Journal these polls revealed that the firm’s remote workers were generally less happy than those working from headquarters, and the company has since invested in more teleconferencing tools to “reconnect [remote workers] with the mother ship,” according to the article.

As many as three times a week, Boston-based public relations and marketing firm Metis Communications asks employees what they are most proud of and whether they feel their managers listen to them. Rebecca Joyner, director of content services at the company, told the Journal that a pair of standing desks appeared at Metis HQ within two weeks of one such survey, which asked employees if they were happy with their office chairs.

It’s worth noting that these organizations—as well as most of the other firms included in the Journal article—are on the small side, in terms of number of employees, and pay about $50 a month or anywhere from $15 to $100 per employee for pulse-survey tools delivered by companies such as knowyourcompany.com, TinyPulse, BlackbookHR and Gallup.

We’ll see if more large companies go this route, but it seems at least some are already taking similar steps to get a handle on how employees are feeling.

Sears Holding Corp., the Hoffman Estates, Ill.-based owner of Sears and Kmart, has launched Project MoodRing, an initiative designed to “record store employees’ moods at the end of their shifts,” according to WSJ.

Workers choose a color-coded emoticon on a screen, to describe how they’re feeling when they clock out, be it “unstoppable,” “so-so,” “exhausted” or “frustrated,” for instance. The article notes that Sears anticipates it will receive about 28 million daily mood responses a year, and has already found “a correlation between slightly higher sales and customer satisfaction at stores where employees are in positive moods rather than neutral or negative moods.”

While conducting surveys—even short ones—with such frequency can get repetitive and eventually begin grating on employees’ nerves, keeping the questions fresh may be one of the keys to successful employee polls.

Quirky Inc., for example, asks its approximately 150 employees about the challenges they’re facing at the moment, and who at the New York-based invention company has demonstrated great leadership in the past week, according to the Journal. Rochelle DiRe, chief people officer at Quirky Inc., told WSJ that the company has begun rotating questions more frequently, as a way to maintain employee participation and interest.

“Without some kind of variation,” says DiRe, “it can get a little bit like homework for some people.”

Twitter It!

HR: Stewards of Compensation?

Forbes contributor Robin Ferracone just posted this morning an interesting Q&A she conducted last month with Jerry McGrath, DHR International’s global HR practices leader, on the topic of HR’s role in determining executive compensation.

In the piece, Ferracone — an executive compensation consultant for more than 30 years — tells McGrath that “the expediency and overall success” of an organization’s compensation program depends on great collaborations with the HR community:

 We believe the role of HR is very important, and we like working closely with the HR team as well as the compensation committee of the board. If we don’t work closely together, surprises inevitably arise, and no one likes surprises – at least in this context.

With that said, Ferracone then highlights a few pitfall areas for HR executives to avoid in the comp arena.

“I have to admit, it was easier to come up with the roles HR should avoid,” she says, which include:

  • CEO advocate: This approach does not play well with the compensation committee and sets up an issue of trust;

  • Peacekeeper: Some eggs may need to be broken to make an omelet; and

  • Copycat or scared-y cat: HR shouldn’t be afraid to proffer opinions. HR deserves to have its own point of view heard.

She then offers five areas HR executives can focus on “to become the stewards of compensation” at their organizations:

1.  Regulation: When it comes to the CEO Median Pay Ratio disclosure, keep it simple. Interpret and clearly communicate the numbers for shareholders. Keep it low-key.

2.  Shareholder Engagement: Engage with shareholders and proxy advisers, but at the right time. Listen carefully to their thinking, ideas and concerns, but don’t feel you’re wedded to them in your design. Instead, wed yourself to your company’s strategy.

3.  Linking Talent to Strategy: Compensation has largely been a backward-looking exercise.  We need to look forward in order to protect our talent franchise. As you think about retention and  workforce planning, you need to think about how to link talent planning to compensation.

4.  Managing Dilution and Talent Retention: For a struggling company, you must recognize when equity isn’t doing its job. You need to think differently about how to compensate in this environment.

5.  Build Trust and Collaborate: The best approach is to work collaboratively with both compensation committees and consultants. Be engaged in the process and refrain from advocating for the CEO.

“In short,” she says, “HR needs to work with management and the compensation committee to ensure that executive interests are aligned with shareholder interests.”

Twitter It!

Stop Buying Into Boring HR-Tech Hype; Focus More on Trust

I was so struck by the simplicity of a recent post on the Horses for Sources website, run by IT and outsourcing expert Phil Fersht and his 477607425 -- boredteam of global-sourcing analysts, that I was compelled to share it here.

The title of the post, “Why we need to stop boring ourselves to death and focus on what really matters: building TRUST,” kind of says it all.

The gist of it is that buyers of technology services want little more than to turn a whole lot more control over to their service providers; this, it points out, is their No. 1 choice for a course of action to “reset these stale services relationships to drive more value beyond labor arbitrage and standard operational delivery.”

And this is what’s top-of-mind for services buyers, the post says, despite what you and I keep hearing about all the other hyped-up tech trends it cites: “how robotic automation, digital technology … big data and outcome-based pricing are going to be the biggest game changers to disrupt the business world since the invention of the desk.”

I love what follows, I guess to depict where all this excitable tech thinking is going to take us:

“Suddenly, there’s going to be minimal need for human labor … so we’ll just sit at home all day running our lives from our mobile devices sequencing our own genomes using some cool analytics app that we only need to pay for once we’ve added 10 years to our life expectancy. Somebody please shoot me now … let’s dial this dialog back to reality for a few minutes.”

Indeed, as reality would have it, when Horses for Sources asked attendees of its recent gathering of enterprise buy-side operations leaders in Chicago to choose among six actions that would best “improve the quality and outcome of your current sourcing initiative,” the winner, by far, was “the buyer letting go and giving more responsibility and value processes to [the] provider.”

Here’s the HfS response to that:

“Oh my god.  After all the whining about things like, ‘All they do is sell to us,’ and ‘All that cool stuff they promised us during the sales process and never delivered’ … the real reason behind this stagnation is the simple fact that most buyers are just struggling to let go!”

In order to do that, though, they need to — you got it — trust that their providers can take on higher-value work from them. And to earn that trust, providers need to prove they can do that. In the words of HfS:

“This means many need to change behavior … the [oh-so-boring] overselling needs to stop and the demonstration of real value needs to start. … Service buyers do not ‘let go’ until they know they have a safe pair of hands to trust with their beloved processes …  .”

Twitter It!

Working Hard for the Holidays

ThanksgivingLast week, HRE reported on the Heartland Monitor Poll, in which 45 percent of 1,000 employed Americans said there was “some chance” they will be working on Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day or New Year’s Day. Now, with Thanksgiving less than 24 hours away, we see more data suggesting a fair number of employees will spend at least the first leg of this holiday trifecta watching the clock at work instead of watching football on the couch.

Bloomberg BNA’s annual Thanksgiving Holiday Work Practices survey—conducted since 1980—found that 33 percent of 364 responding organizations are requiring at least some employees to work on Thanksgiving this year.

That number actually represents a 4 percent drop from Bloomberg’s 2013 Thanksgiving poll, but that’s cold comfort for those stuck at work tomorrow. (Incidentally, the Bloomberg survey finds employees responsible for public safety, security or maintenance are most likely to be among this group.)

On the bright side, however, 74 percent of the companies requiring Thanksgiving work will provide extra pay and/or leave. (That number stood at 55 percent last year.) Thirty-nine percent of these organizations will offer time-and-a-half pay, with 25 percent providing double-time pay. Ten percent will give those working on Thanksgiving both extra pay and compensatory time, while 8 percent of these employees will receive regular pay, and 7 percent will only be granted comp time for their efforts on Thanksgiving day.

Meanwhile, a recent CareerBuilder survey found 16 percent of 3,719 U.S. workers indicating they have to work on Thanksgiving (up from 14 percent in 2013).

More specifically, workers in leisure and hospitality (46 percent), retail (39 percent), healthcare (31 percent) and transportation and utilities (22 percent) will be leading the way among those most commonly reporting for duty on Thanksgiving, according to the study.

Interestingly, the same CareerBuilder poll found that nearly one in five employees will be giving thanks with colleagues tomorrow—even if they’re not working.

That’s right, 19 percent of respondents said they plan to celebrate the holiday with co-workers either in or out of the office.

I chuckled at that figure at first, as it struck me as odd that co-workers would be getting together on Thanksgiving, a day so associated with spending time with family and close friends. But I guess it’s not so strange that “family and close friends” would extend to include colleagues, given the bond that often forms among groups of people spending 40-plus hours a week together. And from an employer’s perspective, maybe it’s a sign that employees—or at least 19 percent of them—enjoy their co-workers and their work environment so much that they want to bring some of that atmosphere home for the holidays.

Twitter It!