Workforce Management printed an article a few weeks ago about the four types of training that should never be cut. One of them is anti-harassment training. It’s a good article and you can check it out here. (Free registration required. But you know you want to anyway.)
I’m amazed that organizations would cut something like workplace violence or anti-harassment training. The cost to conduct training is minimal compared to the potential risk.
Finding citable government or news sources is just about impossible. But, most web articles indicate the average jury award for an EEOC case is around $250,000. That, of course, doesn’t even include legal fees or costs associated with the potential damage to corporate brand and action steps to preventing another such incident from happening again.
Now for grins and giggles, let’s look at the cost of training. I did a quick Google search for:
Anti-Harassment Training Video: One of my favorites, titled “In This Together“, sells for $895 (or rent it for 5 days – $350).
Anti-Harassment Webinar: I found this one priced between $199-$350 depending upon recording options.
Now I know what you’re thinking. “Sharlyn, you have a training company – of course you’re going to promote training.” Okay, sure…I’m all for training. But I never recommend anything that doesn’t make sense for my clients or my readers. And, this is just a no-brainer. Make a small investment to potentially avoid a larger expense via lawsuit. And, with the Supreme Court tackling “sexting”, it’s just a matter of time before that issue moves into the workplace.
Yes, I appreciate times have been tough but, like the Workforce Management article mentions, there are some things you just don’t eliminate. Maybe in the past, anti-harassment training was a half-day in a classroom. Now it’s just an hour and it’s web- or video-based. Either way, it’s important to continue training.
I actually think it could be good for your training programs to mix it up where delivery is concerned. The same program delivered the same way year after year can lose its effectiveness. This is an opportunity.
Let’s face it, the last thing you want is for an employee to do something stupid. Follow the advice of that old sports cliche, “the best defense is a good offense.” Get creative with this and be proactive.
Image courtesy of alancleaver_2000
0
Karla Porter says
This is exactly the training that should never be cut. It is the perfect pairing to the review of company non-harassment policies at the onset of employment. Reminders slid into company newsletters and on the intranet, posters in plain sight – periodic refresher training – all important to keep it kosher and and sane in the workplace.
Sharlyn Lauby says
Totally agree Karla. Thanks for the comment!
Chris Ferdinandi - Renegade HR says
One of the things I’ve always questioned is how effective these types of trainings are at actually changing behavior, particularly when they’re mandatory.
Does anyone really NOT know that it’s against the law to harass people? The kind of folks who do this thing aren’t unaware. They just don’t care. And training isn’t going to change that.
There’s a much deeper culture change that needs to occur, and that has a lot more to do with modeling behaviors than making people watch cheesy anti-harassment videos.
I think training is great for teaching people new skills and how to do things they don’t already know. But to really change behaviors, they have to be modeled and reinforced culturally.
Eva says
Careful, this type of training may have the opposite effect (ie., “say no to drugs” campaign).
If you want to be able to shrug your shoulders and say, “Hey, we trained them not do do this, what more do you expect?” from a legal POV, sure go for the training.
But if you want to actually see a change in behavior, I’d agree with Chris in his comment above.
Avi Singer says
HRB-
When I read the title I as pretty excited, measuring the benefits of training is a passion of mine.
However, the type of training you pointed out here is not really training, it is liability protection. Similar to what Chris and Eva have already pointed out there really is no ROI here. It is not like an investment in your people where you hope to increase productivity or effectiveness, your hoping not to get sued.
It is an insurance policy that protects companies from being sued alongside their employees and in some states is mandatory anyway. What’s the ROI on car insurance? Life Insurance.
Ray Venero says
Hi Sharlyn-
Who do you suppose cuts training from the budget? The HR people themselves when faced with belt tightening! Instead of making a persuavive and buisiness-like argument for resourse, some people take the unimmaginative approach and find the required “savings” in the wrong place.
Heading to FLL for comps. See ya!
Ray
Sharlyn Lauby says
Thanks for the comments. I believe the value in anti-harassment training is two-fold: first, it gives the company the opportunity to say in no uncertain terms this type of behavior will not be tolerated. That statement becomes part of an organizational culture.
Second, it reminds employees of the way to handle a matter should they suspect (or know) harassment is occurring. In my experience, a contributor to diminishing productivity and effectiveness can be when employees see something that’s wrong and don’t know how to deal with it. This allows leadership to deal with it quickly and let everyone get back to focusing on the work at hand.
And I wouldn’t say classroom training and behavior modeling are mutually exclusive.
I think each of you has raised a valid point about reinforcing training outside of the classroom. Managers need to support what happens in training so the effects of training are felt in the operation. That’s how change happens.
ray venero says
…. and the profession needs to demonstrate courageous leadership by standing up and being counted.
Salud,
Ray