Most managers overcomplicate leadership. They chase engagement surveys, perks, and “culture initiatives. ”. Meanwhile, they ignore the simplest, highest-ROI habit available: a 10-minute weekly check-in. Three questions. Once a week. What’s ...
‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ 

The easist thing you can do as an employer to engage your employees

Most managers overcomplicate leadership.

They chase engagement surveys, perks, and “culture initiatives.”

Meanwhile, they ignore the simplest, highest-ROI habit available: a 10-minute weekly check-in.

Three questions. Once a week.
  • What’s working?
  • What’s frustrating you?
  • What support do you need from me?

That’s it. 

But each question does real work.

“What’s working?”
This reinforces good behavior in real time. It tells employees what to keep doing—and tells you what processes aren’t broken. For the employee, it creates recognition without waiting for a formal review. For the employer, it surfaces best practices you can replicate across the team.

“What’s frustrating you?”
This is your early warning system. Small issues—equipment hiccups, scheduling gaps, personality friction—don’t stay small. Left alone, they turn into disengagement, mistakes, or exits. This question gives employees a safe lane to speak up. It gives employers a chance to fix problems while they’re still cheap and manageable.

“What support do you need from me?”
This clarifies expectations on both sides. Employees stop guessing what “help” looks like. Managers stop assuming silence means everything’s fine. It also forces accountability—if support is requested and not provided, that’s on management. If it’s provided and ignored, that’s on the employee.

Ten minutes a week buys you alignment, trust, and fewer surprises.

Skip it, and you’ll spend far more time dealing with the fallout—missed expectations, avoidable turnover, and problems that should have been solved weeks earlier.

Good management isn’t complicated.

It’s consistent.

This was one of the core takeaways from my “Happy Staff, Better Craft” session at this week’s Craft Brewers Conference. Thanks to the Brewers Association for the invitation and the opportunity to be part of an important conversation about people, culture, and leadership in the craft beer industry.


Social-media account redundancy is a MUST HAVE for branded accounts

Ten years. That's how long this group of employees ran their employer’s Instagram account. Built the brand. Engaged the customers. Became the voice of the business.

And then the business (Vortex Doughnuts) collapsed overnight. 

No notice. No paychecks. No plan. 

What followed is the part every employer should be paying attention to. 

The employees—locked out of their jobs but still in control of the company's social media presence—told their story. Publicly. In detail. With receipts. Including a text message from the owner admitting there wasn't enough money to make payroll. 

And the owners? They reportedly deleted the official business pages they controlled. But not this one. 

That's the risk. 

When a business hands over its branded social media accounts to employees without safeguards, it's not delegating marketing. It’s transferring control of a critical asset. One that can shape public perception in real time, at scale, and often irreversibly. 

Most employers don't think about this until it’s too late. 

Social media accounts are not just "logins." They are brand equity. Customer relationships. Reputation. And in a crisis, they become the primary narrative engine. 

If you don't control that engine, someone else will. 

Sometimes that "someone else" is a well-meaning employee doing their job. Sometimes it's a former employee with a grievance. And sometimes—like here—it's a group of employees with a very compelling story and nothing left to lose. 

The legal issues are obvious: ownership of accounts, access rights, trade secrets, potential defamation. But the practical problem is even bigger. Once the story is out, it's out. You don't litigate your way back from a viral post. In fact, that would make it much, much worse. 

So what should employers be doing? 

Control the accounts. Always. Centralized ownership, not personal emails. Multiple admins. Documented access. Immediate revocation protocols. 

And just as important—redundancy. No single employee should ever be the sole gatekeeper to your brand's voice. 

Because when things go sideways—and they do—the last thing you want is to be locked out while someone else tells your story for you.
      

WIRTW #795: the 'girls club' edition

Trump's EEOC is expanding its crackdown on DEI by targeting women-only workplace networking and similar programs as potential illegal “reverse discrimination."

Here's what I told USA Today about this issue:

Women banding together to "build the relationships and visibility that have historically been handed to men is not the moral equivalent of the conduct that gave rise to the Civil Rights Act," said Jon Hyman, who chairs the employment and labor practice at the Wickens Herzer Panza law firm.

"When the agency charged with protecting workers from discrimination starts treating informal women's networking as its enforcement priority, it sends a message − not just a legal one, but a cultural one. And that message isn't 'we're enforcing the law equally.' It's 'we're using the law as a weapon against the very communities it was designed to protect.'"

You can read the rest of the article here, including thoughts from Chai Feldblum, David Glasgow, Brian Uzzi, and Reshma Saujani.

Thanks to Jessica Guynn for including me in her story.


Here's what I read this week that you should read, too.

Why Do Employers Demand Notice When They Fire At-Will? — via Improve Your HR by Suzanne Lucas, the Evil HR Lady

Why AI readiness training fails — via HR Dive

When Creating an AI Strategy, Don't Overlook Employee Perception — via Harvard Business Review


New Decision Reaffirms Roadmap for Employers on the Interactive Process — via Dan Schwartz's Connecticut Employment Law Blog

"Take it or leave it" is not a religious accommodation strategy — via Eric Meyer's Employer Handbook Blog



Ohio Craft Beer's Case for Optimism — via Ohio Craft Brewers Association

Forced religion at work is a very bad idea

It started with an Easter email sent agency-wide from the top: "He has risen!" The message praised Christianity as "the foundation of our faith." Some employees were stunned. Others were offended. Many chose to stay quiet, worried about what might happen if they spoke up.

But it didn't stop there. Prayer services began appearing in government buildings. Invitations circulated. Policies allowed employees to "persuade" coworkers of their religious views. Leadership messaging leaned into a single faith tradition. And with that, the atmosphere changed. Employees described a growing sense of discomfort, pressure, and division—even when everything was labeled "voluntary."

That shift isn't surprising. When religion enters the workplace through leadership, it stops being personal and becomes institutional. This isn't about hostility to religion. Employees have every right to their beliefs, and Title VII protects those rights. Employers must accommodate sincerely held religious practices. People can pray, observe holidays, and express their faith within reasonable limits. None of that is controversial.

The problem arises when the employer becomes the messenger. Power changes everything. When a coworker shares their beliefs, you can disengage. When your boss—or your agency head—does it, the message carries weight. It signals expectation, even if none is explicitly stated. "Optional" starts to feel like a test. "Voluntary" starts to feel like a signal. And silence begins to feel safer than honesty. That's not inclusion; it's pressure.

That's why neutrality matters. Workplaces are not houses of worship; they are shared environments for people of different faiths and no faith at all. The only way that works is if the employer stays out of the religion business. Not anti-religion. Not pro-religion. Neutral. Because once leadership elevates one belief system, others inevitably feel like they don't quite belong.

There are legal risks, of course—religious harassment, hostile work environment, retaliation, and for public employers, constitutional concerns. But the more immediate damage is cultural. Trust erodes. Division grows. Employees who should feel safe speaking up instead stay silent.

Employers need to stay in their lane. Protect religious expression and accommodate it when required. But don't promote it, don't organize it, and don't wrap it in your institutional voice. Once that line is blurred, the consequences are no longer within your control.

Winning a lawsuit is not the proper measurement for the quality of your workplace

"Lincoln may have freed the slaves, but I'm keeping you."

That's what a Black legal assistant claims a law firm partner told her in a closed-door meeting.

The employee sued for a hostile work environment.

The employer won.

That's where the court case ends—but it's not where the employer lesson should.

The Eleventh Circuit applied settled law. One offensive comment—even one this grotesque—is usually not "severe or pervasive" enough to violate Title VII. A single remark typically isn't enough.

So yes, the case was dismissed.

But what does it say about the workplace that produced it?

A partner—someone with authority—said that out loud in a closed-door meeting. That doesn't happen in a vacuum. It reflects a culture that failed to draw clear lines or enforce them.

The firm did what many employers do after the fact. It apologized, reassigned the employee, and created distance between her and the partner. Those steps likely helped limit liability.

They don't make this a success story.

Courts aren't evaluating your culture. They're applying a high legal threshold. Title VII is not a civility code, and plenty of unacceptable behavior falls short of liability.

Too many employers read decisions like this and take comfort in the wrong takeaway. "Case dismissed" becomes "we're fine," or "we don’t have risk."

You're not. And you do.

Because the real risk isn't this plaintiff, who alleged one comment and lost. It's the next one who alleges two. Or brings a witness. Or shows a pattern. Then you're not reading a dismissal—you're defending a case you might not win.

And even if you never see a courtroom, you're still paying for it. Comments like this don't just create legal exposure. They destroy trust in ways no apology can fully repair and damage your reputation in the community.

The law gave this employer a win. It didn't give it a pass.

If you're training managers to stay just shy of "severe or pervasive," you're aiming at the wrong target. The goal isn't to avoid liability. The goal is to make sure no one thinks a comment like that is ever acceptable to begin with.

Because "we won that lawsuit" is a terrible measure of your workplace—and an even worse one of your culture.

More Recent Articles

© Jon Hyman. You're receiving this email because you've signed up to receive updates from us.

If you'd prefer not to receive updates, you can unsubscribe.

Safely Unsubscribe • Archives • Preferences • Contact • Subscribe • Privacy
 
© FeedBlitz® - Win the Inbox ™ | feedblitz.com | info@feedblitz.com | Privacy | Terms of Service

Report a translation issue