Category Archives: payroll

Taking On Banks Over Gender Pay

Figured the day before Equal Pay Day (that’s right, that’s tomorrow!) would be a perfect time to tell you about a pretty interesting teleconference I sat in on recently.

The topic, you guessed it, was gender-pay equity. Two women — Natasha Lamb, managing director and lead filer of gender-pay resolutions for Arjuna Capital, and Former Lt. Gov. of Massachusetts Evelyn Murphy, founder and president of The WAGE Project Inc. (an activist group dedicated to gender-pay equity) — were filling listeners in on Arjuna’s next bold move: making the banks come clean on what it sees as their backward pay practices when it comes to women.

See, Arjuna was the activist investment firm (with U.S. headquarters in Boston) that took the lead last year in getting seven of nine targeted tech companies (eBay, Intel, Apple, Amazon, Expedia, Microsoft and Adobe) to include data on their pay practices in their proxy statements.

Now, said Lamb in the teleconference, her firm is going after six top banks and credit-card companies that it has financial stakes in — Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Bank of America, JP Morgan, MasterCard and American Express — to pressure them to do the same by officially considering its proposal in this year’s annual proxy statement.

Unfortunately, she pointed out, all but MasterCard are opposing Arjuna’s proposal requesting reports from the banks on the percentage pay gap between male and female employees across race and ethnicity (including base, bonus and equity compensation; policies to address that gap; the methodology used; and quantitative reduction targets).

Citigroup specifically came out and said in its proxy statement that such gender-pay-gap reporting would be “costly and time-consuming.” In fact, here is Citigroup’s entire board recommendation from that statement:

“We remain committed to our ongoing efforts to promote diversity in the workplace and believe we are making demonstrable progress in building a diverse company and compensating our employees based on performance. [Arjuna’s proposal] calls for a report on the company’s policies and goals to reduce the gender-pay gap, which would be costly and time-consuming, and in light of our many efforts in this area, would not offer stockholders meaningful additional information. As such, the proposal would not enhance the company’s existing commitment to an inclusive culture or meaningfully further its goal and efforts in support of workplace diversity; therefore, the board recommends that you vote AGAINST this proposal.”

That said, however, Citigroup spokesman Mark Costiglio did tell me his company has “had productive discussions with Arjuna Capital on its proposal and looks forward to continued engagement on this issue.” So we’ll see.

During the teleconference, Lamb lit into the entire banking industry, with direct reference to Citigroup:

“You just can’t get around the fact that big banks are in the stone ages when it comes to gender-pay equity.  Big tech stepped up in 2016 and took real action to address the legitimate concerns of long-term shareholders and women.  Yet the banks are sticking their heads in the sand, which makes you wonder: What do they have to hide?

“It’s a continuation of the status quo where bank leadership paternalistically pats investors on the head and tells them to trust them.  Unfortunately, we already know that banks are among the worst offenders when it comes to how women are treated in the workplace.  How can we hold Amazon to one standard on gender equity while Citigroup pretends it’s 1957, not 2017?”

Last year, eBay, Google and Facebook were all opposed to the pay transparency and improvement campaign. But, “when peer group after peer group agreed to it,” Lamb said, “eBay actually switched to 51-percent approval.” Though Google and Facebook remain opposed, requests to them have been resubmitted, she added.

The business case for pay equity can’t be denied, Murphy chimed in. “In the last seven years, [it’s] been very strong,” she said.

One caller asked if the tech companies have actually done more than simply become more transparent. “Have they taken more steps to close the gender gap?” she asked. Lamb’s response:

“Yes, they have.”

But the banks are going to be a tougher nut to crack, since finance is a heavily male-dominated field with one of the highest disparities of all industries examined by Glassdoor, the release points out.

Apparently, Arjuna is up for the challenge.

Meanwhile, if you’re interested in a silghtly different take on this issue, you might want to tune into this roundtable discussion tomorrow at 11 a.m. PDT hosted by PayScale and moderated by its vice president, Lydia Frank.

The gist of that discussion, Gap Analysis: What Equal Pay Day Gets Wrong, will center on the premise that the oft-quoted “women earn 80 cents for every $1 earned by men” is actually an unfair representation of the gender-pay problem because it doesn’t reflect men’s and women’s pay for the same job (which PayScale claims is actually 98 cents on the dollar).

PayScale believes that the pay gap is, instead, an opportunity gap since women tend to find themselves in lower-paying jobs than men and are also left behind men when it comes to leadership roles or promotions in the workplace.

Wherever the truth lies in all of this, I say it certainly doesn’t hurt to get more employers, whatever their industry, to open their books and start tackling discrepancies.

Pay Equity for Lower Ranks Only

We’ve been focusing, along with the rest of the media, on gender pay equity and wage gaps for some time now. (Witness searches on  this HRE Daily site and our magazine website, HREOnline.com, alone.)

But this latest study from the Academy of Management that’s going into the February issue of the Academy of Management Journal shows something we’ve never reported on: the fact that women managers foster pay equity between the genders, but only for low-ranking employees.

The study, based on actual manager-subordinate reporting relationships in 120 branches of a large U.S. bank, takes into account two different approaches to combatting pay inequity. One consists of pay formalization, which seeks to minimize personal biases by mandating the use of detailed written rules to determine compensation. The other, less formalized approach, looks to the increasing number of female managers in the workforce, and the power they wield to set pay.

According to an email I received on the study:

“… both formalized and less formalized approaches to pay equity come into play in each locale, with employee annual bonuses being awarded on a highly formalized basis but branch managers, almost half of them women, having considerable leeway in determining employees’ base salaries. Thus, [researchers had] a rare opportunity to compare the efficacy of formalized and less formalized approaches in achieving pay equity between men and women workers — specifically, how this is affected by manager gender.

“Unsurprisingly, the paper finds little or no gender gap in the formalized segment of pay — that is, in the amount of annual bonuses, standards for which are spelled out in detail by the company. In contrast, there was significant gender inequality in the less formalized component of pay, base salaries, which constituted the lion’s share of compensation, with greater imbalance occurring on average under male managers than under women.”

Yet, in the words of the study,

“Concluding that female managers redress inequality is incomplete because once organizational level is taken into account, it becomes evident that female managers only reduce inequality for employees at the lowest-level organizational position of teller.”

So … as the study paints it, controlling for a host of relevant factors, female tellers in branches headed by women had base salaries that were about the same as those of male tellers; yet, female tellers in branches headed by men had base salaries about 7.5 percent less than male tellers.

In sharp contrast, women’s wages for all other positions ranged from 4 percent to 13 percent less than those of men holding the same job, regardless of whether the branch was headed by a man or a woman.

What accounts for the fact that women branch managers eliminated the gender pay gap for female tellers but not for higher-status female employees? Does this confirm the “queen bee” effect, which contends that women who have been successful in male-dominated contexts try to keep other women from getting ahead? Mabel Abraham of the Columbia University Business School, the study’s researcher and author, answered this for me:

“Any suggestion that this is a queen-bee phenomenon would be purely speculative. It just as likely is a matter of women showing an extra measurer of concern for lower-income workers. The value of the research lies elsewhere — in highlighting a nuanced approach for organizations in striving for gender pay equity.”

What are employers and their HR leaders supposed to do with this new information? In Abraham’s opinion:

“In order to develop appropriate strategies for reducing gender pay inequality, organizations must concurrently consider the potential role of both female managers and the level of the employee they oversee.”

Oregon’s ‘Historic’ Minimum-Wage Increase

In the ongoing saga of state-enacted minimum-wage increases in the United States (here are our HREOnline analyses and our HRE Daily posts on the subject), it seems we’ve reached a new plateau.

A gavel and a name plate with the engraving Minimum WageAccording to this release from Littler, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown recently signed the first geographically-tiered minimum-wage hike in the country. Her Senate Bill 1532 also gives Oregon the nation’s current highest political statewide minimum wage.

Basically, the state’s current minimum wage is $9.25; however, beginning July 1, 2016, it will rise steadily each year through at least June 30, 2023. How much the rate will increase will depend on where an employer is located within the state.

In other words, this approach allowed the drafter of the plan to account for a higher cost of living in the Portland metro area, for instance, and a lower cost of living in rural parts of the state.

—————————————————-

Here is the actual table, with some explanation and footnotes showing the rundown of the plan:

Effective Date of Rate Increase Base Rate Exception:  Rate within Portland’s Urban Growth Boundary2 Exception:  Rate within Nonurban Counties3
July 1, 2016 $9.75 $9.75 $9.50
July 1, 2017 $10.25 $11.25 $10.00
July 1, 2018 $10.75 $12.00 $10.50
July 1, 2019 $11.25 $12.50 $11.00
July 1, 2020 $12.00 $13.25 $11.50
July 1, 2021 $12.75 $14.00 $12.00
July 1, 2022 $13.50 $14.75 $12.50

After June 30, 2023, the base rate will be adjusted for inflation, with the Portland rate set $1.25 above the base and the nonurban county rate set $1.00 below the base.

Employers should review their payroll practices and, as with any minimum wage increase, implement any required changes to comply with each of the upcoming rate adjustments starting later this year.

1 Some cities have recently raised the minimum wage higher than the projected rates established by Oregon’s new law.

2 An area encompassing the City of Portland and much of the greater tri-county area (Multnomah, Washington, and Clackamas counties) that is managed and periodically expanded by Metro, the Portland area regional government.

3 Baker, Coos, Crook, Curry, Douglas, Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Jefferson, Klamath, Lake, Malheur, Morrow, Sherman, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa, and Wheeler counties.

——————————————————

Interestingly, this piece by Kristen Hannum of the Catholic News Service suggests certain lawmakers relied on their religious faith to inform their votes. As Democratic state Rep. Rob Nosse, of Portland, told the Catholic Sentinel, the archdiocesan newspaper, “Absolutely my faith informs how I voted on this and how I think about it.”

Other religious groups in the state apparently don’t even think the new wage does enough. Jeanne Haster, executive director of the Jesuit Volunteer Corps Northwest, thought the legislation could have gone further, but she appreciates the compromises made to pass the bill. “It’s a practical approach,” she tells Hannum.

One she doesn’t even follow.

According to the story, Haster says her Jesuit Volunteer Corps Northwest sets its employees’ salaries according to Portland’s estimated living wage, which was pegged at $13.56 an hour in the summer of 2015. As she suggests, the Portland, Ore., poverty problem that Oregon legislators were at least willing to consider and act on, is huge:

“We try to pay a living wage rather than a minimum wage because Portland has become such a difficult city to afford to live in. I don’t know how people who make minimum wage live. I think we need to be paying people so they can escape living in poverty.”

It’ll be interesting to see if other states follow Oregon’s lead in trying to address this problem regionally and geographically. That would certainly turn this “plateau” into a whole new chapter.

Pay for Performance is Given a Poor Grade

Money on hand.
Money on hand.

Employers have long embraced the notion of paying for performance. But are these programs really making a difference? Are they really leading to better employee performance?

If we’re to believe the latest survey of 150 companies coming out of Willis Towers Watson, the impact these efforts are having on organizations leaves something to be desired.

According to the Arlington, Va.-based consultancy, the vast majority of North American employers say their pay-for-performance programs are falling short when it comes to driving individual performance.

Moreover, the survey finds that only one in five companies (20 percent) find merit pay to be effective at driving higher levels of individual performance at their organizations. Further, just under one-third (32 percent) report their merit-pay programs are effective at differentiating pay based on individual performance.

Nor are employers the only ones giving these programs low marks. Only about half of employees say these programs are effective at boosting individual performance levels; and even fewer (47 percent) believe annual incentives effectively differentiate pay based on how well employees perform.

Why the low marks?

Part of the reason is employers are either trapped in a business-as-usual approach or suffering from a me-too mentality when it comes to their programs, according to Laura Sejen, global practice leader for rewards at Willis Towers Watson.

Sejen elaborates …

“Pay-for-performance programs, when designed and implemented effectively, are great tools to drive performance, and recognize and reward employees. However, conventional thinking on pay for performance is no longer appropriate. Companies need to define what performance means for their organization[s] and how managers can ensure they are driving the right performance, and re-evaluate the objectives of their reward programs to ensure they are aligned with that definition.”

Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of those surveyed say managers at their organization consider the knowledge and skills required in an employee’s current role when making merit-increase decisions, according to the study. That compares to fewer than half (46 percent) who say their programs are designed to take these performance indicators into consideration.

The Willis Towers Watson findings probably shouldn’t come as a huge surprise to those in HR, since they echo the findings of other studies we’ve reported on in the past.

Roughly a year ago, for instance, we reported on research by Organizational Capital Partners and the Investor Responsibility Research Center Institute that found 80 percent of S&P 1500 companies are not measuring the right metrics, over the right period of time, for performance-based executive compensation.

So what’s the key takeaway here? Well, if we’re to believe the research, it’s the fact that employers clearly have a lot more work to do when it comes to pay for performance—and no one knows this better than the companies themselves.

But, of course, knowing and doing something about it are two entirely different things.

Employers Worry About Pay-Ratio Perceptions

Results of a recent poll by New York-based Towers Watson show it’s not the mechanics of complying with the new CEO pay-ratio-101366398 -- money on scaledisclosure rule — such as data gathering, getting the right sampling, identifying the median employee and the like — that worries employers the most.

It’s how they’re going to explain the pay-setting process to their employees and how their pay ratio will look compared to other companies’ ratios. This according to the almost 600 corporate compensation professionals who weighed in on the Towers Watson Webcast Poll on CEO Pay Ratio Disclosure Rule.

The communication issues loom especially large. Half the respondents cite that issue among their top concerns. Also, how employees will react when they start comparing their compensation to their CEO’s and to the median employees’ is keeping many a top business leader up at night.

For a refresher, this New York Times piece offers some pretty complete details, history and analysis of the 3-to-2 vote on Aug. 5 by the Securities and Exchange Commission that will require most public companies, starting in 2017, to regularly reveal the ratio of their chief executive’s pay to that of employees.

Some of the controversy is also spelled out in the piece:

“Representatives of corporations were quick to assail the new rule … saying that it was misleading, costly to put into practice and intended to shame companies into paying executives less.

“But the ratio, cropping up every year in audited financial statements, could stoke and perhaps even inform a debate over income inequality that has intensified in recent years as the wages of top earners have grown far more quickly than anyone else’s.”

What’s disconcerting at this point isn’t just how this ratio will be perceived, but how few employers really know what they need to do to comply. In the poll mentioned above, only 17 percent of employers agree they understand all of the costs, effort and data that will be needed while almost two-thirds (65 percent) disagree.

In an earlier Towers Watson survey of 170 U.S. compensation professionals, Towers Watson Talent Management and Rewards Pulse Survey, only 48 percent agree that their companies had identified the data they’ll need and know how they will capture it to calculate the pay ratio, while even fewer (41 percent) say they’re prepared for how the disclosure will affect employee perceptions of their pay.

And if you think time is on your side and you’ll get it right with many months to spare, think again, says Steve Seelig, senior regulatory adviser for executive compensation at Towers Watson.

It’s “not too early for HR to begin thinking about how well its company communicates with employees, and to then set a strategy for improving its message,” he says, adding to:

“Keep in mind that, when the disclosure comes out, workers below the median will [immediately start to] wonder what it takes to get them to that level, and why their company is not paying them more. Those employees at or above the median will naturally wonder whether their pay levels are determined fairly, or how the level of CEO pay might be hindering their pay increases. Workers also will be looking at companies across the street and pondering if their median pay is higher, and whether it might be a good idea to look around.

“Human resource executives should [be proactive and] view the pay ratio disclosure as a chance to make sure their employees understand [their company’s] pay-value proposition. Companies that get this communication effort right will find they actually have strengthened their relationship with the workforce, with better productivity and reduced turnover as likely outcomes.”

Those that don’t get it right shouldn’t be surprised when the opposite occurs.

Employees Treated Pretty Well on Memorial Day

148293872 -- memorial dayHappy Memorial Day everyone! No doubt most of you are not sitting at computers right now, but prepping for some enjoyable barbecued fare and time outside. Regardless, just in case you “stopped by” for a spell, thought you might also be interested in some recent findings on how the American workforce is experiencing the holiday.

According to this recent Bloomberg BNA nationwide survey with accompanying infographic, 97 percent of American employers are providing a paid day off today. (That’s heartening. I honestly thought that number would be lower.)

At the same time, more than two in five employers (43 percent) will require some employees to work on the holiday, and 85 percent of those working today will receive some type of additional compensation.

The most impressive breakdown are the differences among organizations by size and type. According to the survey, 80 percent of large organizations — those with 1,000 employees or more — are requiring at least some employees to work today, compared to only 31 percent of smaller organizations.

Also, interestingly, 59 percent of non-business organizations (hospitals, government agencies and municipalities) are requiring at least some of their people to be on staff, compared to only 35 percent of manufacturers and non-manufacturers.

The lion’s share of workers out there today, the survey finds, are in technical, public safety and security roles, which, along with hospitals, “have always been among the employer groups requiring workers to report on holidays,” says Matt Sottong, Bloomberg BNA‘s managing editor for surveys and research reports.

“A sign of the times,” he says, “is the increase in the number of technical workers, men and women, who keep our servers running and data flowing.” This year, 17 percent of tech workers are on duty today, “a greater percentage than even security and public safety,”  Sottong adds.

Holidays such as Memorial Day “pose a particularly nettlesome problem for employers because of the built-in expectation that the day will be provided as a paid day off,” he says. “When workers are told they need to report, managers should come prepared to offer whatever they can to offset the disappointment.”

Fortunately, most appear to be doing that. According to the survey, only 11 percent of employers are requiring some workers to be on duty at regular pay only.

Still, that is 11 percent. One point over 10. Not the most encouraging research, especially when you consider that only 5 percent of employers are sponsoring any kind of holiday-related events or activities this year.

Hope you’re not one of the Memorial Day scrooges. Then again, you are sitting here reading this when you could be outside tossing Frisbees and flipping burgers.

Microsoft CEO Touts Equal Pay after Apology

Satya_NadellaIt seems Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Satya Nadella (at right) is still in apologetic mode after making some ill-advised comments at a recent conference that, in essence, discouraged female employees from asking for raises.

Apologizing immediately afterward, Nadella now says in this Oct. 20 Time magazine online article, that men and women at Microsoft are paid equally. Clearly, the need for more positive spin is still there.

Here, in case you missed it, is Josh Eidelson’s Oct. 13 post on Bloomberg Businessweek‘s Politics & Policy site about whether Microsoft’s female employees have grounds for a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, based on what Nadella said onstage at the recent Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing Conference in San Francisco.

The post also mentions that Nadella apologized and retracted what he said just hours later in a companywide email, calling his gaffe “completely wrong.” For the record and according to Eidelson, here was his egregious response to a question someone at the conference posed about what he would tell women who are hesitant to ask for a raise:

“It’s not really about asking for the raise, but knowing and having faith that the system will actually give you the right raises as you go along. And that, I think, might be one of the additional superpowers that quite frankly women who don’t ask for a raise have. Because that’s good karma. It’ll come back, because somebody’s going to know that’s the kind of person that I want to trust. That’s the kind of person that I want to really give more responsibility to.”

Wilma Liebman, who chaired the NLRB during President Obama’s first term and now lectures at Cornell University, says in the post, “You could make a very clear argument that [such a comment] means, ‘Don’t ask for a raise, and if you ask for a raise, you’re not going to be trusted.’ And ‘you’re not going to be trusted’ translates to ‘you could be in some jeopardy.’ ”

The issue raised in the Businessweek piece, of course — since it considers NLRB review and possible enforcement of Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act — is whether Nadella’s message explicitly chills a protected concerted activity; i.e., a group of Microsoft women banding together in search of higher pay.

Lawyers are mixed on that one. “If a group of women said these comments chilled them from seeking together to get better pay in the workplace, they could file an unfair labor practice claim with the NLRB,” Paul Secunda, director of the Labor and Employment Law Program at Marquette University Law School, is quoted as saying in that story.

On the other hand, the story says, Samuel Bagenstos, a University of Michigan law professor and former Department of Justice official, doubts Nadella’s comments would merit NLRB review, considering he didn’t specifically address that kind of group activism. “Asking for a raise for oneself only would count as concerted activity if there was an argument that the employee was asserting a grievance that was or could be expected to be shared by others,” Bagenstos is quoted as saying.

Hope B. Eastman, principal at Bethesda, Md.-based Paley Rothman and co-chair of its employment law group, who I spoke with about this, concurs. “The fact that Nadella has apologized and retracted his statement, and the fact that his comment was in the context of an individual woman asking for a raise,” she says, “makes it unlikely that the NLRB would take this on … .”

That said, she adds, “there have been studies suggesting that women do not negotiate salaries as well as men; this is an issue that needs attention.” So the silver lining, I guess, is that this issue was given new light through Nadella’s comments.

The Businessweek piece also brings up another story we followed in 2011 on this blog, when the NLRB issued a complaint against Boeing, claiming executives’ public comments about striking employees in the state of Washington suggested they were to blame for the company’s intended move to a new South Carolina site at the time. (Here’s one other mention of that story on this blog.)

As Eidelson points out, that Boeing story establishes “precedent for investigating public comments from an executive as alleged discrimination.”

And — aside from staying on that apparently long, arduous road toward equal pay — what’s the message for HR in all this? I guess check with your C-suiters on absolutely everything they intend to say publicly before they take the podium or stage …

If that’s even possible.

New ADP Index to Focus on ‘Vitality’

ADPPayroll-services provider ADP, which currently puts out a monthly employment report based on its massive trove of payroll data, announced today that it plans to start providing a quarterly workforce index that will offer “deep insights into U.S. workforce dynamics. The first index will be released next month, says ADP. Data from the new index will form the basis of a high-level panel discussion at the HR Tech Conference on October 9 in Las Vegas. David Gergen, senior political analyst for CNN, will chair a panel entitled “Workforce 2020: How Data and Analytics Will Shape the Workplace” that will discuss the implications of data analysis and the workforce from an economic, academic and talent management perspective.

“The U.S. labor market is as dynamic and complex as it has ever been, and this new index will help uncover key factors driving workforce trends,” said ADP president and CEO Carlos Rodriguez in a statement. “The index will provide a clearer picture of the vitality of today’s workforce.”

The new index is intended to answer “critical questions” about the state of the U.S. workforce, according to ADP, such as: How is the workforce thriving as a whole? How do major regions and large states compare? Which industries are doing well? What are the wage trends? What roles do age and gender play?

The index will measure quarterly changes in metrics such as employment growth, wage growth, job turnover and hours worked, says ADP. The index will be compiled by the company’s ADP Research Institute, which also puts out the monthly employment report, and will be derived from its warehouse of 24 million aggregated payroll data sets from companies of all sizes. ADP will collaborate with Moody’s Analytics Inc. on the quarterly report.

 

Increasing Pay, Increasing Challenges

Not sure how you’ll read this, whether you’re the full-glass or half-glass sort, but this latest survey from Mercer shows pay raises are growing steadily … albeit in .1-percent increments.

180274674 -- pay raiseAccording to the New York-based global consulting firm’s 2014/2015 U.S. Compensation Planning Survey, the average raise in base pay is expected to be 3 percent in 2015, up slightly from 2.9 percent in 2014, 2.8 percent in 2013 and 2.7 percent in 2012.

No leaps and bounds, certainly, but indicative — we’d all have to agree — of a steadily improving economy and job market, no?

Granted, .1-percent increments may not give your employees the wow factors they’re looking for as they mull whether to stick around or try out greener-looking pastures. And this can be especially worrisome when you consider what it will take to keep your highest-performing workers on board and happy.

Which leads me to another survey finding: that the range between increases to high-performing employees and those given to lower-performing employees continues to widen. Specifically, the survey shows, the former received average base-pay increases of 4.8 percent in 2014, compared to 2.6 percent for average performers and 0.1 percent for the lower performers.

“Differentiating salary increases based on performance has become the norm,” says Rebecca Adractas, principal in Mercer’s rewards consulting business. “Investing in those employees [who] are driving organizational performance has become a necessity.”

So has making sure the good ones have more than one reason — pay — to stay.

Mary Ann Sardone, partner in the firm’s talent practice and regional leader of its rewards segment, says employers are also “continuing to provide rewards beyond compensation, in the form of training and career development.”

“Employee engagement and retention continue to be a top priority,” she says.

So, on the glass-half-empty end, if you’re not doing everything you can to figure out who your top performers are, what they want and how you can provide it, you will inevitably be caught with your proverbial pants down.

On the glass-half-full side, at least things are looking up … ever-so slowly but surely.

About to be Asked for a Raise? Feed the Source

A paper is being presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management in Philadelphia, which ends tomorrow, that I thought you might find interesting.

167422861 -- crazy hungryIt seems, according to researchers Emily Zitek of Cornell University and Alexander Jordan of Dartmouth College, the hungrier an employee is, the more entitled he or she feels and the more effective he or she can be in asking for a raise.

Their study, I Need Food and I Deserve a Raise, based on two experiments involving about 270 college students, finds that “hunger leads people to feel more entitled,” according to the report. “Hungry people think about themselves instead of others and focus on their own needs, which leads them to feel and act entitled,” it states. (Here’s the AOM press release about the study.)

The paper, according to the release, “defines psychological entitlement as ‘the feeling that one is more deserving of positive outcomes than other people are,’ and explains that ‘entitled individuals pay attention to themselves and the special treatment that they should receive over other things.”

While research “has tended to focus mainly on social and cognitive causes of increased entitlement, such as recalling an unfair event,” the report states, “the authors posit that it can also be driven ‘by amplified levels of a basic physiological drive — hunger — which may cause people to turn their focus inward and place their needs above those of others.’ ”

The authors’ advice? Feed them. It’ll help you in the raise discussion and can smooth some other workplace rough edges as well.

As the AOM report puts it:

… for the edification of bosses, the researchers observe that ‘entitlement can cause big problems in the workplace, so managers might want to provide food to employees or wait to schedule potentially contentious meetings until after lunch.’ They go on to note that, ‘although certainly due to a host of factors, organizations with readily available food, such as Google, are also known for having unentitled, grateful and satisfied [digestively and otherwise] employees.”