On Sunday, Tiger Woods was back in Augusta and again won the green jacket. But now, the question on the minds of many was different from the thoughts people had when Tiger Woods was a newly emerged phenom: Is it OK to cheer him for his remarkable return to golf’s pantheon? For many years now, the extraordinary success of Tiger on the golf course has been overshadowed by stories of infidelity, a DUI arrest, and his struggles with physical ailments that impacted his play. In 2017, he pleaded guilty to reckless driving and agreed to a diversion program, a fine, and probation, among other requirements, to avoid charges of driving under the influence. Now back on top, do we have the language needed to talk about Tiger? Sports journalist Bomani Jones noted the fraught terrain: “Nothing displays America’s collective ability to compartmentalize quite like a Tiger Woods victory.” CNN
As talent markets get tighter and the world becomes more connected, a major new trend has emerged from our research: the need to improve internal talent mobility to more effectively move people among jobs, projects, and geographies. This year, internal talent mobility has become a C-suite-level topic, with 76% of our survey respondents rating it important and 20% rating it one of their organization’s three most urgent issues. It’s not hard to understand why. For many organizations, their biggest potential source of talent is to access the enterprise’s own workforce and internal talent market. Surprisingly, however, that market is often undervalued and even overlooked, and many organizations find it amazingly difficult to access. The sad and maddening reality is that employees generally find it easier to find new — and more attractive — opportunities in another organization than to explore and move to new roles at their current employers. In this year’s Global Human Capital Trends survey, more than 50% of respondents told us that it was easier for employees to find a job outside their organization than inside, a situation that leaders would do well to address. Deloitte
It’s been more than a year and a half since the #MeToo hashtag took off on Twitter, and the movement that activist Tarana Burke started in 2006 became an unavoidable part of the national conversation. Since then, discussions around workplace sexual assault and harassment are being heard in a way they weren’t before. Unsurprisingly, many female entrepreneurs are taking these issues seriously. Leading their own companies and illuminating the runway for others who follow, many have taken #MeToo and changed their companies. It’s about giving employees a safe platform to be heard, discarding the notion that sexual harassment was an expected truth women had to deal with in the workplace, asking “why” more often and ensuring management leads by example. Fast Company
Registered for Indeed Interactive yet? The keynote by Amy Poehler is getting all the buzz, but we’re intrigued by Carmen Bryant, director of marketing for Indeed, who is giving a keynote speech about the importance of branding. Everything a business does comes with a promise, whether spoken or unspoken. To paraphrase Silicon Valley venture capitalist, philanthropist, and author Freada Kapor Klein, a company that doesn’t live up to the promises it makes faces serious repercussions from customers, employees, partners — and job candidates. At a time when authenticity is key and the talent market is hotly competitive, broken promises can damage your employer brand, making it more difficult to get top candidates to join your company. Bryant is doing a deep-dive into the four main influences on employer brand — company culture, employee opinions, candidate experience, and corporate reputation. She’ll share strategies to help you set — and deliver upon — realistic expectations that reflect well on your employer brand, as well as examples of companies who have mastered the art of authenticity. Indeed Interactive
Colorado tire company A&E Tire, Inc. will pay $60,000 and provide other significant relief to settle a sex discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). A&E Tire offered a job to Egan Woodward, but did not hire him after it learned that he was transgender. A&E Tire offered Woodward the job subject to a background check but then called Woodward when it saw that he had checked female on his background screening paperwork. According to the EEOC, A&E Tire then decided not to hire Woodward and ultimately hired someone else for the position. The EEOC settled the lawsuit after months of discovery and a court order denying A&E Tire’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In denying the motion to dismiss, the district court held that the lawsuit could proceed because the EEOC plausibly alleged that A&E Tire had not hired Woodward because he did not conform to sex stereotypes. In doing so, the district court recognized that discrimination against transgender individuals is discrimination based on sex stereotyping because transgender individuals identify as a sex different from their birth-assigned sex. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on sex. EEOC
