The research was conducted by Kelly Services, Inc, between October 2009 and January 2010 — in the teeth of the recession. It essentially asked 134,000 people to describe their level of loyalty to their employers, and how that level had changed with the dire economy. Here’s how the employees responded:

• 27% said their level of loyalty to their employers had gone up as a result of how the employers treated workers during the tough times — and not necessarily because of increases in pay and benefits.
• 10% said employer reaction and treatment of employees during tough times had lessened loyalty to the company.
• 63% said their level of loyalty stayed the same.

The apparent lesson: Employees sympathize that times are difficult and employers have to make tough choices. Employees don’t sympathize when they perceive that companies are taking advantage of the times to mistreat workers who, because of the job market, are afraid to look elsewhere.

The bottom line: The job market will get better. And when it does, companies that handled employee relations with integrity will have the edge.

Sarah Kohl-Leaf of Taylors Falls, MN, complained in an e-mail to Evergreen Entertainment, which operates a chain of movie theaters, about several service shortcomings and payment problems at the company’s St. Croix Falls cinema. In the letter, she threatened to take her business to a competitor:  “I would rather drive to White Bear Lake, where they obviously know how to run a theater than have this experience again.”

Evergreen VP Steven Payne reacted with this response (which we cleaned up to achieve a rating of PG):

“Drive to White Bear Lake and also go f*** yourself. If you don’t have money for entertainment, get a better job, and don’t pay for everything on your credit or check card. You can also shove your time and gas up your f****** a**. Also, find better things to do with your time. This email is an absolute joke. We don’t care to have you as a customer. Let me know if you need directions to White Bear Lake.”

Something resembling customer-service sense must have kicked in later for Payne, because he followed up that message with another that apologized for the first message.

As you might imagine, the whole thing ended up on Facebook, motivating the formation of a group calling itself “Boycott St. Croix Falls Cinema 8.” At last count, it had 4,300 members — twice the population of St. Croix.

And, yes, there is a rival Facebook group called “We Support Steven Payne.” It has 68 members.

To get a better understanding of what meets the standard for appropriate documentation, answer True or False to the following:

(Answers are at the bottom.)

1. If you’re writing up documentation about an employee’s major violation of behavior or performance standards, you should try to stick with the major problem, and don’t include other minor violations.

2. For performance appraisals, the following statement is acceptable: “Your work is consistently below the quality of others in the group.”

3. Promises of promotions, raises or other employee rewards are binding only if they’re in writing.

Answers

1. True. Courts are suspicious of documentation that starts to look like a grab-bag of offenses. If you’re writing someone up for a string of unexcused absences, it’s dangerous to let the write-up wander into something like, “And you were five minutes late twice.”

2. False. The problem: Making a comparison with others doesn’t address the important question: Was the employee’s performance below acceptable quality standards? Better to give examples of deficiencies, such as, “You missed three important deadlines.”

3. False. Many court cases have illustrated that spoken promises can be as binding as written ones. Of course, spoken promises are tougher to prove, but no one wants to be put in a position in court where a lawyer asks: “Did you say you’d promote Miss Smith?”

The exercise appeared in “Psychology Today” and is based on a test developed by a teacher to make sure students get better-directed feedback.

Imagine you are taking part in a clapping contest. (Bear with us on this.) Three judges are chosen to rate the quality of clapping on a 1-5 scale, with 5 being the very best score and 1 being the worst. You have one practice trial where you get feedback before you do it for real lat.

Scenario One: For your practice trial, you clap wildly – frantically and enthusiastically for the required 30 seconds. Then you stop. The judges confer. Judge 1 gives you a 3. Judge 2 gives you a 2. Judge 3 gives you a 3. You leave the room with 3 minutes to prepare for your performance.

Scenario Two: Same situation, but at the end the judges confer and critique your performance. “I don’t really like the fact that you started your applause at such a quick pace. There was no texture to your performance,” states the first judge. “And the beats were much too close together,” says the second. Judge 3 mutters,  “Too quiet. Much too quiet.” You earn two 3s and a 2. You leave the room to prepare.

Scenario Three: Same situation. But the judges confer and critique in a different way. “What I think really makes an excellent performance,” explains the first judge, “is a performance that builds. I like it to began slowly and then get louder and louder, almost like a crashing wave. What you did was great for the end part, but it would have much more impact if you created some contrast between the beginning and the end.” The second judge nods. “You can also increase the crescendo by starting with slower, quieter clapping, but then getting faster and louder towards the real triumphant ending. Your clapping at the end was quite good.” “You’re looking for a sharper sounds as well”, says the third judge. “You keep clapping with the middle of your hands, but you really want that sharp sound to give it some definition. I absolutely hate that hollow palm on palm sound.”  You earn two 3s and a 2 and go to prepare for your final performance.

Question: Which scenario should lead to a better final performance? Why?

In Scenario 1, you received feedback – your marks – but you have no idea what they’re based on. You know you need to change something. But what? They’ve given you no clue, so you’re equally likely to change for the worse as change for the better.

In Scenario 2, you’ve been told what not to do, but you don’t know what your goal is. So you can avoid the behavior you know they didn’t like (being quiet, starting too loudly and not having enough texture, and clapping too fast). But what are they looking for?

Scenario 3 is the most useful. They tell you what your goal is – eliminating a whole range of possible behaviors. They tell you which aspects of your behavior will help you towards optimal performance. They tell you what they don’t like as well. And they even give you some ideas for behaviors or techniques you may not have thought about.

Remember the three clapping scenarios the next time you’re giving feedback.

A company called Opinion Research asked 1,800 people to choose the workplace behaviors that are the most annoying. Here are the, uh, winners:

1. Grumpy or moody co-workers (37%). Usually, this involves people who bring their personal problems to work. An early-morning spat with a spouse is a top contender for the cause of such behavior. Anyway, it’s what we hate the most, according to the survey.
2. Gossipers (19%). Apparently, many who were polled don’t see the value in baseless stories about who’s cuddling with whom, who’s getting fired and who’s answering polls. Or maybe they were the ones being gossiped about.
3. The use of jargon (18%). Clearly, the people who put this on their list are incapable of “thinking outside the box.”
4. Loud phone talkers (18%). We imagine this one’s triple-annoying when the speaker is gossiping and saying stuff like “thinking outside the box.”
5. Poor toilet etiquette (16%). The less said about this, the better.

The company holding the seminar: BenefitsSpecialists.

The venue: The Houston Zoo.

So between lengthy lectures on HIPAA, FMLA and ADA, the attending HR managers got to mingle with and pet he likes of Luna the baby alligator, Lucky the chinchilla and Trixie the 18-pound Flemish giant rabbit.

Apparently, in an effort to increase revenues, the zoo has begun marketing itself as a site for business meetings of all types, including those for HR folks. Other cities are picking up on the idea, so you may see a seminar soon at a zoo near you.

And for those who can resist knowing:  Yes, there was a seminar in Houston on COBRA. Yes, there was a cobra.

(Answers at the bottom.)

True or False:

1. AD/HD is a recognized disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

2. Workers who suffer from AD/HD can demand that you omit deadlines from their job requirements.

3. If an adult employee was diagnosed with AD/HD as a child, that’s all the verification that person needs to be classified as an AD/HD sufferer.

Answers:

1. True. The ADA recognizes AD/HD as a valid disability. Of course, that also means that a person who claims to suffer from AD/HD and seeks ADA protections must also provide verification from a qualified healthcare provider.

2. False. An employee with AD/HD isn’t exempt from meeting any job requirements, including deadlines. The employee can request an accommodation – such as a quieter place to work and fewer distractions.

3. False. Children do outgrow AD/HD. In fact, some studies show that as much as 70% of children diagnosed with AD/HD don’t suffer from it as adults. So, while just about every adult who has the problem also had it as a child, not every child carries it into adulthood. To be classified as an adult AD/HD sufferer, the person must show current symptoms.

The test is called the Color Career Counselor. It was developed by a psychiatry professor who theorized that color preferences provide great clues into what types of jobs people are suited to and the chances people have of succeeding.

In fact, USA Today assembled a board of 877 CEOs and asked them to take the test to see if it pegged the bosses accurately.

The results showed:

• Successful people have similar color preferences.
• Color preferences can be used to gauge the careers people are better suited to.

Interesting side note: One of the test-takers was a former Southwest Airlines CEO who’s colorblind and who said the results were nonetheless accurate.

Want to take the test? Expect to spend about 60 seconds doing so, and you’ll have to give your e-mail address to get the results.

These come adapted from a blog by Margaret DiBianca, an employment law attorney with the firm of Young Conaway:

1. Company business is confidential. Company information should not be shared outside the company. Similarly, any activities that occur at the company’s facilities shouldn’t be shared outside the company. That confidentiality includes any photos of company events or facilities and any information about customers.

2. Be courteous. Don’t post derogatory, defamatory, or inflammatory content about others for any reason. The ban on such content extends to retaliatory posts if someone posts something of a questionable nature about you or the company.

3. Don’t publicize illegal activities. Of course, it’s assumed that all employees will follow the law. But any content that infers or implies that you are engaging in illegal conduct reflects badly on the person and the company.

4. Respect everyone’s privacy. Assume that your co-workers and clients wish to maintain their privacy and do not want any details or photos of them to be posted.

5. Standards of conduct remain high. Any conduct that would be grounds for dismissal if performed at work will be grounds for dismissal if performed online. The company. for instance, doesn’t tolerate slurs or harassing behavior in the workplace, so employees can assume the same standards for online activities.

The identities and remedies come courtesy of Robert Half Technology:

1. The Misguided Multitasker. This person thinks that e-mailing or texting during a meeting or conversation demonstrates efficiency. But all it really demonstrates is rudeness. Suggestion: Ask this person to use the handheld device only in an urgent situation and to step out of the room to reply in such situations.

2. The E-mail Addict. If you’ve ever played e-mail tag with a colleague, you’ve likely encountered this person, who relies on a constant stream of e-mails, instant messages or texts to communicate every needs. Why? This individual thinks it will save time. But excessive messaging, particularly regarding trivial things, can be inefficient and disruptive. Suggestion: Ask the e-mail addict’s manager to offer a reminder that often a phone call or in-person discussion can resolve issues more quickly.

3. The Broadcaster. In a meeting, a restaurant or a restroom, this person has no shame when it comes to using a cell phone anytime, anywhere — to discuss anything. When using a cell phone in common areas, it’s not only disrespectful but also potentially off-putting to others. Suggestion: Advise all employees to keep private conversations limited to private places.

4. The Cyborg. Rare is the chance to see this person without the blinking glow of a Bluetooth headset or iPod earbud nestled in an ear. Keeping a wireless earpiece or headphones constantly plugged in signals to others who may need to speak to you that your attention is not available. Suggestion: Teach workers that they should show that they are accessible to their colleagues by using earpieces in the office with discretion and consideration.

5. The Distractor. This person may have good intentions in setting a cellphone to vibrate rather than torturing colleagues with a cheesy ringtone, but hearing it repeatedly buzz loudly on a desktop or during a meeting can be just as distracting. A better solution: Ask workers to set their phone to silent or keep it in their pocket when in the office.