Syntrio’s Award-winning FlexCode Code of Conduct Training

We are very pleased to announce that Syntrio’s "FlexCode Code of Conduct Training" has been selected as a Runner-Up in the E-Learning category of the 2019 International E-Learning Awards, Business Division, given by the International E-Learning Association

What are the International E-Learning Awards?

The International E-Learning Awards are given each year for the best work in e-learning, mobile learning, and blended learning. All submissions are evaluated based on educational soundness, effectiveness, usability, and overall significance.

What is the International E-Learning Association (IELA)?

IELA was founded in 2007 and is a diverse organization made up of members from every continent who are e-learning professionals, researchers, and students coming together from the realms of business, industry, government, and academia.

What does this Award stand for?

The International E-Learning Awards recognize the best uses of technology to improve learning and job performance within companies or through individual professional development.

What is Syntrio’s FlexCode?

FlexCode is the next evolution in Code of Conduct training. Syntrio ethics and compliance training are designed to bring learners into realistic  situations, where they must immediately apply what they learn about a specific topic. Further, Syntrio’s customizable ethics and compliance solution favors practical and relevant information, unburdened by “legalese,” so employees absorb the benefits of ethical behavior, as well as explore how to respond when questionable situations arise.

Businesses can choose any combination of Core, Summary, and Ethical Snapshot modules to design course that suits their unique Code of Conduct training needs. To learn more visit http://www.syntrio.com/resources/flexcode-brochure/ 

If you want to learn more about the International E-Learning Association visit their website at https://www.ielassoc.org/index.html 

 

Illinois Sexual Harassment Training will now be Required: What does an Employer do?

Last week the Illinois General Assembly approved legislation that would require all employers in that state to conduct mandatory sexual harassment training. If signed into law by Illinois Governor Pritzker, this law would take effect on July 1, 2020 and would be the most comprehensive of its kind in the country. Given the substantial implications for employers (and the extremely high likelihood that it will be signed into law) it is imperative that employers prepare for and implement a harassment training program now, so that they can be ahead of the curve once the training is required soon after the July 1, 2020 effective date of the law.

Illinois is Likely Follow the New York Legislative Path

 

In April 2018 New York enacted legislation that is similar in scope to the law just passed by the Illinois General Assembly. The New York law had an effective date of October 9, 2019 and an original requirement that employers complete the training by January 1, 2019. That requirement was later modified to October 9, 2019. As you see with the Illinois law having an effective date of July 1, 2020, it can be expected that training will need to be complete sometime within the 2020 calendar year.

 

New York released a list of FAQ and modified its law several times leading up to the release of the model training program it issued in late August 2019. You can expect Illinois to do the same, and given the Illinois Department of Human Rights history, you can expect somewhat more clarification as to what needs to be contained in your training program given there is less conflict between municipalities and the state than there was in New York last year.

 

What we know for sure is Illinois will require employers to provide training on an annual basis, and the Illinois Department of Human Rights will be keeping a close watch on what type of training employers are providing. This means it is a good idea to get started on the process now, rather than waiting for the law to go into effect and scrambling to comply with the law on a retroactive basis. You will be providing your employees with training on an annual basis going forward, so why wait another year?

 

Provide Training in Summer 2019

 

The new Illinois law requires employers to annually train their employees on the prevention of sexual harassment in the workplace. It also requires employers to provide an explanation of what constitutes harassment under Illinois State law, provide examples of harassment, summarize state and federal laws (and remedies for) sexual harassment, and summarize the responsibilities of employers in recognizing, investigating, preventing and taking corrective measures to prevent harassment.

 

There is no need to wait for the Illinois Department of Human Rights to release the model training program to get a jump on providing your employees with sexual harassment training. While there will be greater clarification in the requirements of the training by the time the law goes into effect, providing training now, when the news is fresh, shows your employees that your organization is serious about not just compliance with the law, but also with eliminating a culture where harassment is tolerated by setting the training trend in your industry rather than merely following the law when it goes into effect. Syntrio is ready to train your employees on the prevention of sexual harassment in Illinois and we can help.

 

Syntrio’s Model is Effective

 

Even if you are not prepared to launch a full-scale Illinois training program in advance of the new law’s effective date, we can still work with you using our industry-leading learning continuum that has set the standard for effective harassment training nationwide. Syntrio has over 20 years experience working with states with mandatory training laws, and we believe in our model.

Whether you choose to provide your employees our Illinois sexual harassment training course now or at the time the law goes into effect you can be assured you are providing your workforce the most comprehensive and engaging training available on the market. Syntrio develops its sexual harassment courseware based on a “hub model” wherein approximately 70% of its content and scenarios are consistent across jurisdiction, yet a full third of the content is customized to the nuances of each state’s law, culture, fit and feel. Should you have employees in multiple jurisdictions they will all feel as though they have taken the same course, yet you can trust that you will be in full compliance with the law in each mandatory training state, which is not something that can be said by our competitors using a “one size fits all” model.

 

Syntrio encourages your organization to get a head start on training your Illinois workforce on the prevention of sexual harassment in the workplace. We are prepared to discuss a plan with your leaders that will not only comply with the new law but position your organization as a true champion of equal opportunity rights.

Why Is Soft Skills Training Optional?

The Situation

In my twenty-plus years in the training industry, I’ve worked both as an employee or in-house consultant purchasing training and as a vendor offering off-the-shelf and customized training. Topics such as compliance, regulatory changes, and health and safety are understandably often mandated training. Yet, the suite of interpersonal and personal competencies, typically known as “soft skills,” too often collects the digital version of dust on organizations’ learning management systems. Then, after time passes, training professionals and senior management recognize that critical soft skills remain lacking despite the availability of these optional courses, leaving them in no mood to upgrade or even continue this library due to employees’ seeming lack and interest and low use.

 

Simultaneously, according to one large survey, 92% of executives say that soft skills are equally important or more important than technical skills. And 89% of executives say that it is difficult to find people with soft skills. In the same survey, 44% of these same executives responded that the biggest skills gap among employees involves soft skills.

 

But the Research Says . . .

Employees with strong soft skills benefit companies. For example, research from Boston University, Harvard University, and the Ross School of Business at University of Michigan reveal that training employees in self-awareness and other soft skills produces a 256% return on investment. Conversely, employees with poor soft skills can actually cost organizations time and money due to problems resulting from poor communication, performance management, and leadership. With such strong evidence backing the need for soft skills training and proficiency, why aren’t more companies genuinely focused on improving these critical skills? This contradiction occurs time and again. A recent Adecco survey finds, “Of the executives who believe there is a skills gap, 89% say that apprenticeships and training programs could help. But 42% say that in-house training programs would be too expensive.”  

 

What’s Behind the Disconnect?

Frankly, what executive, shareholder, and other stakeholder wouldn’t welcome a 256% ROI? So, what’s clouding leadership’s thinking? One issue is not addressing the soft skills gap holistically. For instance, according to a Learning House report, “Despite pointing the finger at colleges and universities for not helping to address the skills gap, almost half of employers (43%) are not extending their hand in collaboration to these institutions to help ensure the necessary skills are being addressed.”

 

The same report finds that 74% of companies only invest $500 per employee on training and development in the workplace, regardless of topic.

 

Sometimes, leadership holds employees responsible for not taking optional soft skills training. However, research by the staffing company Randstad finds that 66% of US employees between 18 and 34 years old say they need to strengthen their interpersonal skills — where is the organizational support?

 

Some organizations fantasize that one-time training suffices. How many of us learned to ride a bike the first time we tried? Or mastered tying our shoes or kicking a soccer ball on the first attempt? Even more to the point, how many of us developed the technical skills that serve as the backbone of our professional experience after one course? Yet we expect individuals to demonstrate mastery of critical soft skills competencies after a single training session?

 

One’s confidence about new knowledge and skills doesn’t happen overnight. To wit, not enough organizations invest in and commit to a comprehensive training program involving effective soft skills courseware, role plays, supplemental learning materials, various delivery modalities, different learning styles, and so on.

 

How Organizations Can Close the Soft Skills Gap

First, organizations should make soft skills training a priority and requirement. They need to prove that they’re devoted to personal and professional development so that their employees succeed. According to LinkedIn’s 2018 Workplace Learning Report, 94% of employees would stay at a company longer if it invested in their career development. Further, 56% of employees would spend more time learning if their manager directed them to take a specific course to improve their professional skills.

 

Companies can also augment soft skills training programs with strategies like building a coaching and mentoring program, retention training, prescriptive learning paths tailored to specific job roles, and including soft skills assessments in hiring and performance reviews.

 

Bottom line: Investing in and fully supporting soft skills training may seem like an unnecessary expense and afterthought, but actually it can become one of the best initiatives an organization takes to remain competitive in our global economy.

When It Comes to Harassment Training, One Size Does Not Fit All

As of April 15, 2019, twenty-seven states either have: a. a legislative requirement that some employees receive training on the prevention of unlawful harassment in the workplace or b. proclaimed an administrative or legislative recommendation that harassment training take place among some portion of the jurisdiction’s workforce.

New York, California, Connecticut, Maine, Delaware – and to an extent D.C. – (which require training for state or other public-sector employees) have gone beyond many of their peers by enacting sweeping legislation that is applicable to large portions, if not all, of workforces in these states.

These specific states enacted their training laws to suit the needs of each individual jurisdiction. The needs of employers operating across multiple states were not contemplated by any of the legislatures when these laws were developed.
Enforcement practices are ignorant of the fact that a great many employers operate in more than one state that has a mandatory training law. The increased training requirements have created substantial burdens on multi-state employers, leaving them scratching their heads as to the best approach for training some or all of their workforces so the businesses can comply with the legislative requirements and ensure that the remainder of the workforce is not left behind in this important education.
Now employers are recognizing that a “check-the-box” approach to of getting training “out of the way” is not only ineffective, but also potentially damaging to workplace culture. Further, it has become crystal clear among harassment training experts that a “one-size-fits-all” approach simply does not work.

Different States Have Different Requirements

Compliance with the various state mandatory training laws is admittedly burdensome and time consuming, but it is important to understand the key differences among the five (discounting D.C.) states that require a large portion of their workforces to receive training.

Varying Time Requirements

California and Connecticut managers are subject to a two-hour training requirement, whereas New York, Maine and Delaware have no specific time requirements. Further, California’s non-supervisory employees must receive at least one hour of training in order to comply with the law in that state.

While the employer who allocates time for comprehensive training may see value in providing two hours of training to all employees, many employers believe that employees taking two hours of the work day to attend harassment training is more than they can spare where such a time requirement is not imposed by law.

Syntrio recently concluded that one hour is a “sweet spot” minimum to effectively communicate the necessary instruction to build the foundation for an effective harassment prevention program. Therefore, if you have managers in multiple states, it would be necessary to provide multiple versions of the manager training to account for the increased volume of training required by California and Connecticut.

Different Content Requirements

A non-state-specific course must by nature focus on federal law, which is the floor for harassment protection. Employees in states with mandatory training laws must receive more detailed state-specific information.

Aside from the basic principle that each mandatory training law requires special training for managers, much of the content and language requirements set forth by the states with mandatory training laws differs:

  • Protected classes vary state to state (which are additions to federal law), thereby creating the need for unique descriptions and scenarios.
  • Definitions of harassment and its interpretation are significantly different in various states (many states are broadening the definition of harassment and its historical analyses).
  • Manager duties prescribed by specific states differ (and conflict) with one another.
  • California requires training on abusive conduct, a state-specific concept and definition.
  • California requires training on gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation, none of which are uniformly protected by the federal law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  • California recommends training on categories other than sexual harassment such as age, race, and religion, while New York training specifies a focus on sexual harassment.
  • New York, Delaware, Connecticut, and Maine require detailed instructions on how and where to report a claim of harassment to the administrative agency within that state.
  • New York has a state-specific claims reporting process that must be included in the course. It is more detailed and thorough than those in other states.
  • New York requires information on New York City laws, that differ from state and federal law significantly.
  • Connecticut and Maine require line-by-line language from the state anti-discrimination laws and verbatim description of reporting procedures inapplicable in other states.

As you can see, attempts to rationalize and distill all of the above training requirements (which are part of the significant differences) have been futile. For this reason, Syntrio takes the approach that “one-size-fits-all” courseware that generalizes the above requirements is non-compliant for employees who are subject to state-specific harassment training requirements and it diminishes an employer’s ability to train its staff to requirements mandated by these states.

Time Is Money: Examining the Length of Harassment Training Courses

Harassment training costs money, both in employee time and actual dollars spent. Because of the significant resources that must be expended to train a workforce on the prevention of workplace harassment employers are understandably looking for the most “bang for the buck” on their investment. While efficiency in training is absolutely critical, there comes a point where a core harassment course is simply too brief to educate a workforce on the important concepts that encompass the world of harassment prevention. So where is the “happy medium?”

Five states (and the District of Columbia) currently require at least some employees to be trained on the prevention of harassment in the workplace. Of those five states, only California and Connecticut have statutorily mandated minimum training requirements, both requiring a minimum of two hours of training for managers. California recently enacted a law requiring non-supervisory employees to also be trained, but the state requires just one hour of training for non-managers on the same topics as the two hours of training required for managers. The other four jurisdictions requiring training (New York, Delaware, Maine and D.C.) did not set a minimum within their law, but New York infers in its guidance (and verified in response to a question on the subject) that 60+ minutes is the minimum amount of time required to train employees on the topics it considers mandatory for training to be in compliance with the law.

The previous statement is curious given the “FAQ” answer the New York Department of Human Rights (“NYDHR”) gives in response to the question “is there a minimum number of training hours employees must complete each year?” New York State answered that question with a seemingly unambiguous (yet very qualified) “[n]o. As long as they receive training that meets or exceeds the minimum standards.” In order to determine what those minimum standards are, it is necessary to examine the NYDHR's model training script that was released when that state’s law went into effect. While the script outlines the necessary topics for minimum training, the interactivity requirement in the state’s law certainly adds significant time over just reading through the 23 page script.

A representative from New York State responded to a telephone inquiry on the subject in January 2019 that the minimum training program was written and intended for an approximately 60 to 90 minute delivery time. Therefore, while the state set no minimum time within its law, it not only requires training that meets the minimum standards set forth in the law, but the State itself was unable to develop a program that lasts less than 60 minutes (and more likely longer).

California and Connecticut surely did not develop their statutory one- (California non-supervisors) and two-hour minimum time requirements without conducting significant research into the amount of time it would take to effectively and comprehensively train employees on these important subjects. While the skeptical employer may argue that those requirements were first developed 20 (Connecticut) and 12 (California) years ago, New York followed up with creating a course that was designed to take between 60-90 minutes. Therefore, it is clear from state Human Rights Department conclusions that an hour is the minimum amount of time a core harassment prevention course should be designed to take, and it is possible that state fair employment agencies subscribe to a “more is better” approach.

What to Look For When Selecting Your Training Methods

The aforementioned information should be taken into account when considering the use of an exclusive micro-learning platform or other short-form harassment prevention approach to your organization’s needs. While your state may not have a training requirement, it is certainly important to fulfill this important need as part of the duty your organization has to maintain a culture free of harassment. Even if the well-being of your employees and corporate culture take a back seat to preventing and defending lawsuits (which is not a recommended approach, yet one that we have heard over the years as a reality for some employers) the more than $1 billion annual harassment verdict and settlement costs routinely estimated over the last several years should be enough to convince the most skeptical of training customer that this is a subject well worth investing the proper time and dollars into doing correctly.

While there is no way to quantify what amount of training “works,” in over 12 years of experience providing hundreds of in-person and online training programs to companies of all sizes it has become clear that one hour is the minimum amount of time needed to effectively illustrate the concepts contained in such a broad and complicated topic as the prevention of workplace harassment. While one hour may seem brief, an expert trainer skilled in keeping the audience’s attention can effectively teach these concepts and provide ample time for the interactivity and learner engagement that is so critical to making the educational concepts stick. Anything less is truly doing the workforce a disservice, and nothing more than an attempt to “check the box” without providing an actual learning opportunity.

The most effective approach to training (as reinforced by the states that have developed their own mandatory minimum training scripts and set time limits) is a long-form core training course followed up by a learning continuum consisting of short form training that emphasizes particular concepts and issues. Such an approach builds the foundation necessary for continued learning and is without a doubt the most effective means of improving corporate culture and empowering your employees to work together to prevent incidents of harassment from occurring going forward.