August 27, 2025 • 17 mins
What if many of the HR "rules" you've always followed aren't actually rules at all? This eye-opening exploration of workplace urban legends challenges common misconceptions about human resources practices that have become deeply embedded in organizational cultures.
We start by tackling perhaps the biggest myth of all: that HR exists primarily to ensure employee happiness. Tracing the evolution from the old "personnel department" hostess-like function to today's strategic partner role, we reveal how progressive organizations leverage HR to align human capital with business objectives. With people costs typically representing about 60% of organizational overhead, strategic HR focuses on future skill needs, resource optimization, and preparing for tomorrow's challenges rather than simply making people happy or ensuring compliance.
Another persistent myth we debunk is the belief that companies must treat every employee identically. This misunderstanding of equity versus equality leads organizations to implement one-size-fits-all policies that frustrate high performers and fail to address underperformance. We discuss how organizations can legally establish different benefits, rules, and opportunities based on performance, hierarchical level, or other non-discriminatory factors.
At the heart of these misconceptions lies an important question: what's your organization's risk tolerance? Much like financial advisors assess investment risk comfort, companies must determine their appetite for employment-related risk. Zero-risk approaches often create different kinds of problems, limiting flexibility and innovation. We explore how organizations can balance compliance with strategic flexibility, making decisions based on legitimate business needs rather than fear of potential litigation.
Ready to free your organization from unnecessary HR constraints? Listen now to discover how questioning these urban legends could transform your workplace culture and unlock new potential in your team. Then share your experiences with HR myths that have affected your organization—we'd love to hear which misconceptions you've encountered!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Karman (00:00):
Good morning Scott and Tammy.
Tammy (00:05):
Echo, echo, echo.
Good morning Karman.
Scott (00:10):
Podcast, podcast, podcast Karman, good to see you.
Karman (00:16):
It feels like the podcast introduction equivalent
of a vaping store.
A vaping store, a vaping storeLike all the lights and the
flashing things and like I'vebeen trying to figure out what's
the culture behind, like thesignage at vaping stores, and I
(00:39):
would have to do a lot moreresearch.
Tammy (00:41):
I didn't know that you went to vaping stores a lot more
research.
Karman (00:45):
I didn't know that you went to vaping stores.
No, I'm just driving past them,you know, like at nine o'clock
at night, when everything elsein the strip mall is closed and
there's the vaping store withlots of lights and action, like
I'm missing out on somethinghere you are Absolutely.
Tammy (01:03):
So we had someone in first class last night as I was
flying vaping on the plane?
Scott (01:10):
Did they kick him out?
Tammy (01:13):
They didn't say anything.
Scott (01:15):
Oh, for f**ks sake.
Tammy (01:17):
Yeah, I was like that person's over there and you know
they make those little vapes,nowes now I guess that really
small that don't have smoke orwhatever and they're over there
and I was like I called theattendant over, I'm like she's
like what?
Karman (01:31):
like she goes, didn't do anything even Tammy's super low
d notice someone's sucking outa vape um, I sat across from a
woman in the emergency room theother night who was vaping in
the ER.
Nice, yeah, I was like, wow,anyway, that's not what we're
(01:55):
here to talk about today.
We're not here to talk aboutvaping.
No, no, last week we talked alittle bit about decision
fatigue and what are thedecisions that you should be
making, and in that conversationwe touched a little bit on like
things that leader sometimesthinks they should be deciding
(02:21):
like it's supposed to be theirdecision for whatever reason,
and maybe it shouldn't be.
And so what I want to explorethis week is other things that
we sometimes think are true andit turns out they're just urban
legends, and specifically, Iwant to talk about HR-related
(02:44):
urban legends.
Like somebody asked me theother day when they were
interviewing like, do we have toask every interviewee the exact
same questions?
That was something.
Scott (02:58):
Actually what's best if you just do it by robot, so all
the questions are just recorded,because it is just like check
the box.
As long as you ask thosequestions, you can hire anyone.
Tammy (03:12):
Actually, during COVID, people actually sent questions
to folks and said go ahead andtape yourself on Zoom and send
it in, and that was a hiringpractice in COVID.
Just give them the questions,let them record their answers
and turn them in.
Can you even imagine?
I love this, Karman?
What is the stuff that wesometimes think HR won't let us
(03:36):
or HR themselves have decidedit's a rule.
But it's not really a rule,right, it's a preference, All
right.
Okay, Scott, you got one.
Scott (03:45):
Yes, I think probably there's a couple.
I'm trying to decide which oneto go with.
I think it's.
I'm just going to go for thebiggie.
I think HR is here to make surethat employees are satisfied
and happy.
Tammy (04:07):
That's a myth.
Karman (04:12):
I'm pretty sure the last time I checked, there are
people who would say theopposite.
Hr is here to make sure peopleare dissatisfied and unhappy.
Scott (04:23):
Oh, and you know what?
I think that's a myth as well.
I mean, if you really thinkabout it, they're there to
ensure that the the company issustainable and protected and
things are fair and equitable.
I mean, that really is theirrole.
Ultimately, now, depending onyour perspective of HR, are you,
(04:46):
you know, are you looking at HRas a compliance house, or is HR
a strategic partner?
Now we can have a verydifferent conversation about,
kind of the purpose and role ofHR.
Tammy (04:58):
Well, and if we go back historically, you know,
historically HR was the peopleplace and you know that's where
you were friendly and taken careof and all that kind of stuff,
you know, and it was more aroundpersonnel.
That was the phraseology that weused back in in the dark ages
and it really was.
You know, hr was more hostesskind of right.
(05:21):
And then HR became complianceright and compliance and
regulatory kind of issues,making sure that we followed all
the laws and all those thingswere taken care of, and it
really became a protection forthe organization and mitigating
risk.
And we've come a long ways fromthat and yet we still have
(05:41):
people who hold on to those twovery old fashioned ideas that
that's the purpose of HR.
And the purpose of HR is not tobe the hostess and the purpose
of HR is not simply compliance.
It really, if you are in thatchief human resource officer
kind of role or if you're in anorganization who sees human
(06:03):
resources in a place that says,you know, we people, the people
who work here, make up about 60%of what it costs on, you know,
our overhead, that's just kindof salaries and benefits.
It's about 60% for mostorganizations kind of salaries
and benefits.
It's about 60% for mostorganizations.
How do we ensure that thatresource, that organizational
resource, is being utilized inthe way that it optimizes the
(06:26):
opportunity for the organizationand actually optimizes it for
the human being as well in thatspace, and when we do that,
we're being good stewards ofthat particular resource.
How do we do that?
If you're really strategic,you're saying where's the
company going to be in threeyears?
What skill sets do we need inthree years?
(06:46):
How do we build those skillsets so that these people are
ready for that?
How do we make sure that we'rereally nimble and we can be
moving people from place toplace so that they can be
plugged in, instead of sorry,that person is sitting over
there, bored out of their mindbecause we're not giving them
the kind of work that encouragesthem?
There's so much there that canbe strategically used in an
(07:07):
effective way to move theorganization forward.
Many organizations are stuck inone of those two old-fashioned
kind of ways of looking at humanresources instead of seeing how
they can be the businesspartner that prepares us for the
future.
And that really is, I think,where HR is going in the future
in that space.
It's not the future today inreally progressive organizations
(07:30):
.
So, scott, I agree with you HRis here to take care of the
people is an urban myth.
It's not its role.
I would say this here's anotherone you have to treat everybody
exactly the same and that ifyou did this for Susie, you have
(07:50):
to do that exact same thing forJose, and if you don't, there's
a lawsuit.
No way, that is what many, many, many people believe.
They say equitable, which iswhat you.
The word that you use, scott,is equal, and that is actually
(08:11):
not accurate.
Scott (08:12):
And it's when you start to dissect the laws and the
rules, there is yes, you do.
Actually, you don't have to beequitable, you can be
inequitable if you want to right.
You just have a risk of alawsuit that someone could claim
right, that it was inequitableor it was unfair because of this
(08:33):
or that.
Right Now, most people look atit and say, hey, we want to be
equitable or as fair as we canbe, and I can have different
rules for different segments ofthe population.
I can have different benefitsfor different segments of the
population.
So you could say the executivesget this and the frontline
(08:55):
staff get that, Admin managersget that.
All of that is absolutely legaland allowable.
Most organizations look at itand say I don't want the
administrative burden, I justwant to make it easy.
So I'm just going to make itthe same, and there is some
rationale to that, because if Idon't have administrative burden
(09:17):
, it's just easier.
When Jose comes and complains,you can say, hey, no way, Jose,
don't complain.
See what I did there, Becausewe do it like this for everyone
and you know.
So there I get it.
How is that helping you?
That's to me, is the questionthat how is keeping it the same,
helping you?
(09:39):
Is it doing what you need it todo?
Tammy (09:42):
I would actually tell you and this is one of the pet
peeves that we hear all the timeis that we have underperformers
.
We have people who areperforming, you know, solidly,
and then we have superperformers, and if you actually
treat all those folks the sameso you're talking about segments
in terms of hierarchy and thosetypes of things but one of the
(10:05):
things that I see all the timeis these super performers who
are saying you are treating melike an underperformer and
they'll say well, we have totreat everybody the same.
No, we don't.
Okay, One of the things insideof organizations is, if we have
underperformers, we should betreating them differently.
They do not get the sameprivileges.
(10:27):
Now, pay and compensation andbenefits, yeah, okay, but when
it comes to other things,accountability should mean I am
having these kind ofconversations with this person
and I have someone who is asuperstar and have a totally
different set of conversationswhen opportunities come up, this
(10:47):
person is eligible for thoseopportunities.
My underperformer is not.
We should have a very distinctway, different way, of treating
people depending on theirperformance inside of the
organization.
And unfortunately, we hear toooften well, we have to treat
everybody the same.
(11:08):
No, don't treat your superstarslike everybody else, because
your superstars will leave.
Right, Scott, you got anotherone, yeah.
Scott (11:16):
Well, I was going to do the.
It's really the one Karmanmentioned at the beginning.
We have to ask people that weinterview the same questions and
you don't.
Tammy (11:29):
So, scott, where do these things come from, right?
I mean all honesty, theserestrictions?
Why do they raise their headsand why are we so conservative?
Scott (11:43):
I mean, I believe it's two things and they may be
interrelated, but I in my mind,when I think, well, how come,
why?
Why is that happening?
I think people read the laws,or the laws, and they interpret
it in a certain way, sometimestoo rigid.
Tammy (12:05):
They're mitigating risk to the place where there is zero
risk.
Scott (12:08):
Zero risk, right?
Yeah, so I'm going to read itand if I do A, b, c and D, we're
protected and I don't have toworry.
I think the other thing is,either they got burned or they
read about company X got suedbecause of this or that and,
like whoa, I don't want to besued.
(12:30):
So, therefore, I'm going to putin this new rule or policy or
what have you, and again, Idon't want to be sued either.
That is not a place I reallywant to spend time, and if that
is driving your course of action, that, to me, perpetuates this.
You're a compliance house, hr,versus saying are we going to be
(12:55):
a strategic partner?
Hey, Karman, you're the CEO,you're the business owner?
Hey, we have this risk, wecould do this or this.
I recommend option B.
It does have a little bit ofrisk, but you know what.
You know, we're 48 employees.
The likelihood of someone doingthis, this and this is low.
(13:18):
Are you okay with that?
Right, very different thanwe're doing.
Option A, because I want to,you know, be Fort Knox, and so I
think it's those two things,tammy, if you hear that, is
there a different perspectivethat you have?
I mean, those are mine.
Tammy (13:35):
Actually the piece about this, and I think this is the
most important If you have afinancial advisor, one of the
first questions they ask you iswhat's your comfort level with
risk?
I do think that if I'm in an HRposition, so I'm a chief human
resource officer one of thequestions that I'm going to ask
(13:57):
is hey, as an executive team,let's talk about risk, right,
what is our organization's risktolerance?
That conversation is one thatnow determines, kind of, our
levels of some of thedecision-making that we do.
And I will tell you, it's notunusual for a legal team to come
in and say I'm taking all riskout of that.
(14:19):
Okay, like here's the zero riskline.
Well, unfortunately, when we goto some of these zero risk
lines, what we are doing iswe're causing ourselves pain and
suffering in another way.
All right.
So for me like I am prettyobviously Scott and I own this
place, right, we we made adecision years and years and
(14:39):
years ago that we could handlethe risk of being self-employed,
to own companies, to have staff, to have payroll, all of that
kind of stuff that's risky to alot of people.
So Scott and I have a higherlevel of risk than some.
But this.
If you're inside of anorganization, this is really an
executive decision.
What is the level of risk thatwe're comfortable with?
(15:01):
And in that particular spot?
That's that first piece, andthen all of our HR policies need
to align with that level ofrisk.
And there are times that, yeah,I'm going to do something, and
is it possible that that couldopen us up for someone saying
yep, and now I'm going to seeyou, yep.
(15:23):
And then the question is areyou going to fight it?
Because I will tell you, if youdon't, then the next person is
going to learn that lesson andthey're going to follow in that
person's footsteps, and on andon and on.
So what I will tell you is that, yeah, sometimes there are
things worth fighting for and Idon't want to have our
organization bow to the factthat one person might sue us.
(15:46):
Okay, I'll take that risk, I'llstand in that space, I'll win,
because I have been very carefulabout the decisions that I've
made in that particular area andshow folks that we can have
this flexibility of how we treatpeople, we can have this
flexibility in interviewing, wecan have this right.
(16:07):
All of that Because if I wasdoing it in a way that still met
the law right, without goingall the way to like there is no
interpretation whatsoever.
No interpretation whatsoever,then honestly, you may be open
for people coming after you andif you can justify your
(16:29):
decisions and how you made thosedecisions and it wasn't based
upon bias you'll win.
And I think that's the thingabout we are handcuffed in this
spot of thinking that it's goingto be around bias.
Someone's going to say we'rebiased and we're going to end up
in a court of law.
Was your decision biased or wasit based upon?
Hey, we're meeting the diverseneeds of our workforce and if
(16:50):
we're meeting the diverse needsof our workforce and it's not in
a biased category, you as anorganization shouldn't be
worried about a lawsuit.
Good morning Scott and Tammy.
Tammy (00:05):
Echo, echo, echo.
Good morning Karman.
Scott (00:10):
Podcast, podcast, podcast Karman, good to see you.
Karman (00:16):
It feels like the podcast introduction equivalent
of a vaping store.
A vaping store, a vaping storeLike all the lights and the
flashing things and like I'vebeen trying to figure out what's
the culture behind, like thesignage at vaping stores, and I
(00:39):
would have to do a lot moreresearch.
Tammy (00:41):
I didn't know that you went to vaping stores a lot more
research.
Karman (00:45):
I didn't know that you went to vaping stores.
No, I'm just driving past them,you know, like at nine o'clock
at night, when everything elsein the strip mall is closed and
there's the vaping store withlots of lights and action, like
I'm missing out on somethinghere you are Absolutely.
Tammy (01:03):
So we had someone in first class last night as I was
flying vaping on the plane?
Scott (01:10):
Did they kick him out?
Tammy (01:13):
They didn't say anything.
Scott (01:15):
Oh, for f**ks sake.
Tammy (01:17):
Yeah, I was like that person's over there and you know
they make those little vapes,nowes now I guess that really
small that don't have smoke orwhatever and they're over there
and I was like I called theattendant over, I'm like she's
like what?
Karman (01:31):
like she goes, didn't do anything even Tammy's super low
d notice someone's sucking outa vape um, I sat across from a
woman in the emergency room theother night who was vaping in
the ER.
Nice, yeah, I was like, wow,anyway, that's not what we're
(01:55):
here to talk about today.
We're not here to talk aboutvaping.
No, no, last week we talked alittle bit about decision
fatigue and what are thedecisions that you should be
making, and in that conversationwe touched a little bit on like
things that leader sometimesthinks they should be deciding
(02:21):
like it's supposed to be theirdecision for whatever reason,
and maybe it shouldn't be.
And so what I want to explorethis week is other things that
we sometimes think are true andit turns out they're just urban
legends, and specifically, Iwant to talk about HR-related
(02:44):
urban legends.
Like somebody asked me theother day when they were
interviewing like, do we have toask every interviewee the exact
same questions?
That was something.
Scott (02:58):
Actually what's best if you just do it by robot, so all
the questions are just recorded,because it is just like check
the box.
As long as you ask thosequestions, you can hire anyone.
Tammy (03:12):
Actually, during COVID, people actually sent questions
to folks and said go ahead andtape yourself on Zoom and send
it in, and that was a hiringpractice in COVID.
Just give them the questions,let them record their answers
and turn them in.
Can you even imagine?
I love this, Karman?
What is the stuff that wesometimes think HR won't let us
(03:36):
or HR themselves have decidedit's a rule.
But it's not really a rule,right, it's a preference, All
right.
Okay, Scott, you got one.
Scott (03:45):
Yes, I think probably there's a couple.
I'm trying to decide which oneto go with.
I think it's.
I'm just going to go for thebiggie.
I think HR is here to make surethat employees are satisfied
and happy.
Tammy (04:07):
That's a myth.
Karman (04:12):
I'm pretty sure the last time I checked, there are
people who would say theopposite.
Hr is here to make sure peopleare dissatisfied and unhappy.
Scott (04:23):
Oh, and you know what?
I think that's a myth as well.
I mean, if you really thinkabout it, they're there to
ensure that the the company issustainable and protected and
things are fair and equitable.
I mean, that really is theirrole.
Ultimately, now, depending onyour perspective of HR, are you,
(04:46):
you know, are you looking at HRas a compliance house, or is HR
a strategic partner?
Now we can have a verydifferent conversation about,
kind of the purpose and role ofHR.
Tammy (04:58):
Well, and if we go back historically, you know,
historically HR was the peopleplace and you know that's where
you were friendly and taken careof and all that kind of stuff,
you know, and it was more aroundpersonnel.
That was the phraseology that weused back in in the dark ages
and it really was.
You know, hr was more hostesskind of right.
(05:21):
And then HR became complianceright and compliance and
regulatory kind of issues,making sure that we followed all
the laws and all those thingswere taken care of, and it
really became a protection forthe organization and mitigating
risk.
And we've come a long ways fromthat and yet we still have
(05:41):
people who hold on to those twovery old fashioned ideas that
that's the purpose of HR.
And the purpose of HR is not tobe the hostess and the purpose
of HR is not simply compliance.
It really, if you are in thatchief human resource officer
kind of role or if you're in anorganization who sees human
(06:03):
resources in a place that says,you know, we people, the people
who work here, make up about 60%of what it costs on, you know,
our overhead, that's just kindof salaries and benefits.
It's about 60% for mostorganizations kind of salaries
and benefits.
It's about 60% for mostorganizations.
How do we ensure that thatresource, that organizational
resource, is being utilized inthe way that it optimizes the
(06:26):
opportunity for the organizationand actually optimizes it for
the human being as well in thatspace, and when we do that,
we're being good stewards ofthat particular resource.
How do we do that?
If you're really strategic,you're saying where's the
company going to be in threeyears?
What skill sets do we need inthree years?
(06:46):
How do we build those skillsets so that these people are
ready for that?
How do we make sure that we'rereally nimble and we can be
moving people from place toplace so that they can be
plugged in, instead of sorry,that person is sitting over
there, bored out of their mindbecause we're not giving them
the kind of work that encouragesthem?
There's so much there that canbe strategically used in an
(07:07):
effective way to move theorganization forward.
Many organizations are stuck inone of those two old-fashioned
kind of ways of looking at humanresources instead of seeing how
they can be the businesspartner that prepares us for the
future.
And that really is, I think,where HR is going in the future
in that space.
It's not the future today inreally progressive organizations
(07:30):
.
So, scott, I agree with you HRis here to take care of the
people is an urban myth.
It's not its role.
I would say this here's anotherone you have to treat everybody
exactly the same and that ifyou did this for Susie, you have
(07:50):
to do that exact same thing forJose, and if you don't, there's
a lawsuit.
No way, that is what many, many, many people believe.
They say equitable, which iswhat you.
The word that you use, scott,is equal, and that is actually
(08:11):
not accurate.
Scott (08:12):
And it's when you start to dissect the laws and the
rules, there is yes, you do.
Actually, you don't have to beequitable, you can be
inequitable if you want to right.
You just have a risk of alawsuit that someone could claim
right, that it was inequitableor it was unfair because of this
(08:33):
or that.
Right Now, most people look atit and say, hey, we want to be
equitable or as fair as we canbe, and I can have different
rules for different segments ofthe population.
I can have different benefitsfor different segments of the
population.
So you could say the executivesget this and the frontline
(08:55):
staff get that, Admin managersget that.
All of that is absolutely legaland allowable.
Most organizations look at itand say I don't want the
administrative burden, I justwant to make it easy.
So I'm just going to make itthe same, and there is some
rationale to that, because if Idon't have administrative burden
(09:17):
, it's just easier.
When Jose comes and complains,you can say, hey, no way, Jose,
don't complain.
See what I did there, Becausewe do it like this for everyone
and you know.
So there I get it.
How is that helping you?
That's to me, is the questionthat how is keeping it the same,
helping you?
(09:39):
Is it doing what you need it todo?
Tammy (09:42):
I would actually tell you and this is one of the pet
peeves that we hear all the timeis that we have underperformers
.
We have people who areperforming, you know, solidly,
and then we have superperformers, and if you actually
treat all those folks the sameso you're talking about segments
in terms of hierarchy and thosetypes of things but one of the
(10:05):
things that I see all the timeis these super performers who
are saying you are treating melike an underperformer and
they'll say well, we have totreat everybody the same.
No, we don't.
Okay, One of the things insideof organizations is, if we have
underperformers, we should betreating them differently.
They do not get the sameprivileges.
(10:27):
Now, pay and compensation andbenefits, yeah, okay, but when
it comes to other things,accountability should mean I am
having these kind ofconversations with this person
and I have someone who is asuperstar and have a totally
different set of conversationswhen opportunities come up, this
(10:47):
person is eligible for thoseopportunities.
My underperformer is not.
We should have a very distinctway, different way, of treating
people depending on theirperformance inside of the
organization.
And unfortunately, we hear toooften well, we have to treat
everybody the same.
(11:08):
No, don't treat your superstarslike everybody else, because
your superstars will leave.
Right, Scott, you got anotherone, yeah.
Scott (11:16):
Well, I was going to do the.
It's really the one Karmanmentioned at the beginning.
We have to ask people that weinterview the same questions and
you don't.
Tammy (11:29):
So, scott, where do these things come from, right?
I mean all honesty, theserestrictions?
Why do they raise their headsand why are we so conservative?
Scott (11:43):
I mean, I believe it's two things and they may be
interrelated, but I in my mind,when I think, well, how come,
why?
Why is that happening?
I think people read the laws,or the laws, and they interpret
it in a certain way, sometimestoo rigid.
Tammy (12:05):
They're mitigating risk to the place where there is zero
risk.
Scott (12:08):
Zero risk, right?
Yeah, so I'm going to read itand if I do A, b, c and D, we're
protected and I don't have toworry.
I think the other thing is,either they got burned or they
read about company X got suedbecause of this or that and,
like whoa, I don't want to besued.
(12:30):
So, therefore, I'm going to putin this new rule or policy or
what have you, and again, Idon't want to be sued either.
That is not a place I reallywant to spend time, and if that
is driving your course of action, that, to me, perpetuates this.
You're a compliance house, hr,versus saying are we going to be
(12:55):
a strategic partner?
Hey, Karman, you're the CEO,you're the business owner?
Hey, we have this risk, wecould do this or this.
I recommend option B.
It does have a little bit ofrisk, but you know what.
You know, we're 48 employees.
The likelihood of someone doingthis, this and this is low.
(13:18):
Are you okay with that?
Right, very different thanwe're doing.
Option A, because I want to,you know, be Fort Knox, and so I
think it's those two things,tammy, if you hear that, is
there a different perspectivethat you have?
I mean, those are mine.
Tammy (13:35):
Actually the piece about this, and I think this is the
most important If you have afinancial advisor, one of the
first questions they ask you iswhat's your comfort level with
risk?
I do think that if I'm in an HRposition, so I'm a chief human
resource officer one of thequestions that I'm going to ask
(13:57):
is hey, as an executive team,let's talk about risk, right,
what is our organization's risktolerance?
That conversation is one thatnow determines, kind of, our
levels of some of thedecision-making that we do.
And I will tell you, it's notunusual for a legal team to come
in and say I'm taking all riskout of that.
(14:19):
Okay, like here's the zero riskline.
Well, unfortunately, when we goto some of these zero risk
lines, what we are doing iswe're causing ourselves pain and
suffering in another way.
All right.
So for me like I am prettyobviously Scott and I own this
place, right, we we made adecision years and years and
(14:39):
years ago that we could handlethe risk of being self-employed,
to own companies, to have staff, to have payroll, all of that
kind of stuff that's risky to alot of people.
So Scott and I have a higherlevel of risk than some.
But this.
If you're inside of anorganization, this is really an
executive decision.
What is the level of risk thatwe're comfortable with?
(15:01):
And in that particular spot?
That's that first piece, andthen all of our HR policies need
to align with that level ofrisk.
And there are times that, yeah,I'm going to do something, and
is it possible that that couldopen us up for someone saying
yep, and now I'm going to seeyou, yep.
(15:23):
And then the question is areyou going to fight it?
Because I will tell you, if youdon't, then the next person is
going to learn that lesson andthey're going to follow in that
person's footsteps, and on andon and on.
So what I will tell you is that, yeah, sometimes there are
things worth fighting for and Idon't want to have our
organization bow to the factthat one person might sue us.
(15:46):
Okay, I'll take that risk, I'llstand in that space, I'll win,
because I have been very carefulabout the decisions that I've
made in that particular area andshow folks that we can have
this flexibility of how we treatpeople, we can have this
flexibility in interviewing, wecan have this right.
(16:07):
All of that Because if I wasdoing it in a way that still met
the law right, without goingall the way to like there is no
interpretation whatsoever.
No interpretation whatsoever,then honestly, you may be open
for people coming after you andif you can justify your
(16:29):
decisions and how you made thosedecisions and it wasn't based
upon bias you'll win.
And I think that's the thingabout we are handcuffed in this
spot of thinking that it's goingto be around bias.
Someone's going to say we'rebiased and we're going to end up
in a court of law.
Was your decision biased or wasit based upon?
Hey, we're meeting the diverseneeds of our workforce and if
(16:50):
we're meeting the diverse needsof our workforce and it's not in
a biased category, you as anorganization shouldn't be
worried about a lawsuit.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.